Who is going to stand up to the US this time when it decides to invade Iran ?

Mick86

stevedublin wrote:

Probably, but thats not to say it wont happen this time.

Well I suppose if they keep saying it then someday they may be right.

Akrasia wrote:

But an attack isn't. They have plenty of bombers, cruise missiles and fighter planes in reserve

The thread title specifies an invasion. The US could well launch an airstrike but airstrikes alone are highly unlikely to be 100% effective. Take for example Lebanon last year or Kosovo in 1999.

clown bag wrote:

Nicolas Sarkozy. Ehud Olmert.

I don't see France wading in on an invasion of Iran. Even if they did their contribution would be relatively small. The US would have to make up the bulk of the invasion force and short of reintroducing the draft in election year the troops just aren't available.

As for Israel. If she attacks Iran then it can only be a solo run as America's proxy. The US couldn't overtly attack a Muslim country with Israel because it would cause mayhem in those Muslim states that are trying to keep out of the conflict-like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It would also not do Musharraf any favours.


.

clown bag wrote:

Trying to debunk an attack based on logic doesn't fly with these lads.

It's nothing to do with ideology or logic, it's simple logistics. At present the US cannot successfully engage in a land campaign in Iran.

Mr.Micro

.

It's nothing to do with ideology or logic, it's simple logistics. At present the US cannot successfully engage in a land campaign in Iran.[/QUOTE]

Then why all the rhetoric from the US ?.Dont threaten what you cant back up!
I am sure the Iranians are aware of this as well .The world is becoming much more complicated in that many nations have sophisticated weapons and conventional wars are a thing of the past .Attacking the likes of Iraq and parts of the Balkans where the armed forces were primitive and behind technologically with regards to weapons and no risk of nuclear retaliation. Iran could prove to be a different scenario with the possibility of escalation into the rest of the Middle East.

Despite all the logistical improbability of an invasion put forward most eloquently by all the contributors I feel that GW could not ride off into the Texas sunset with that pesky Iran laughing at him , as one person posted GW already has the mandate ( not sure of that myself) which I presume is an extension of his current emergency power to attack Iran .

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Not exactly news. The US has been going through 'Attack Iran' drills on and off since 1979.

As I understand it, it is not your usual 'attack iran' drills. The military people are pretty much aware of this. You have also a lot of hardware moving into the Gulf near Iran for the last year.

Bush doesn't need a bill to attack anyone. There is ample precedent.

He needs approval by congress before he can go to war. He can't just attack any country he feels like. In fact he only attacked Iraq by using a loophole of using the previous approval to attack Iraq in the first gulf war.

I think an airborne raid to get boots on the ground and obtain evidence is quite in the cards.

I don't think the US is in a position to get boots on the ground. It isn't Iraq, you will be fought by everyone there as the US are purely the aggressor.

The targets will not be Nuclear plants in the bombing raids, unless Bush goes against his agreement he signed with Iran in order to elicit help in Iraq.

If he does hit the nuclear plants the mess is going to be worse. Mentioned it before but you can see the plants using google maps. They aren't hidden at all. They are normal power stations and most are just outside major cities. Hitting them is liable to spread radioactive fallout across those cities.

Isn't that the matter of contention?

The current details out there would suggest that Iran is either not actively looking for a nuclear weapon, or if they are they would be around 6-10 years away from making one. You also have a country that hasn't attacked any of it's neighbors in a long time, yet has been attacked by the USA (coup) and Iraq (again paid for by the USA).

The USA simply has no credibility anymore.

Even so I would put Pakistan as a more dangerous country with Nuclear weapons. It is not a stable country, It has Taleban sympathizers and OBL is alleged to be in that country. Bush Administration knew Pakistan was building nuclear weapons (since 2006) and did nothing about it. Instead he gave India nuclear ability.

I also see in recent news that Norman Podhoretz claims that Bush will attack Iran (godfather of neocons). This was after a private meeting with Bush. C-Span story here.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/01/podhoretz-bush-iran-attack/

Hobbes

Hellm0 wrote:

Better the devil you know they say. Besides the US brand of fairy tale nonsense doesnt include stoneing people to death(at least not nowadays).

Yea its not like they kidnap people and send them to secret prisons to be tortured, or break laws in government when it comes to voting or funding their friends with tax money.

The USA has long since stopped being a moral compass.

Also saying "Well at least they are not as bad as ...." is a stupid way to think.

dave2pvd wrote:

The 'Rapture' site you posted represents the people or the governance of the United States??

Actually there is a very small percentage of US citizens that believe that it can only be saved by the Rapture and feel that escalating the world to the rapture is the best way to go. Thankfully none of these fruitcakes are in any position of power.

Fanatical christians now is a different story.

Hellm0

Hobbes wrote:

Also saying "Well at least they are not as bad as ...." is a stupid way to think.

I'd prefer it if you didnt resort to name calling, it doesnt do anything to disuade me from my way of thinking and infact you come off as childish by having to resort to that.

As I said, I deal in realities. Would prefer that Iran had nuclear capabilies and not the US?

By no means is the US perfect but their not AS insane. The world is made up of shades of grey, there are no perfect countries and if given a choice I know which I'd prefer had the power to end life on earth(none, but thats not an option).

EDIT. This is not a debate about the US's morality. I hold no value in the "morality" of any state or organisation. I infact do not beleive in a shared morality in anyway other than that it may serve to keep society stable(no murdering, rape nor pillaging etc). Anything further is dogma and may have no other purpose than to be used by tyrants, dictators and generally folk who want to have power over you(any organised religion).

djpbarry

micmclo wrote:

It is a nuclear threat and a regime change is needed.

Right, because history has shown us that US military intervention has always resulted in the formation of stable democratic institutions :rolleyes: .

is that so wrote:

India will not want an extremely large Islamic state on the border with Pakistan mustering forces for war.

I think a US/Israeli attack on Iran would put Pakistan in a very difficult position. It could possibly lead to major conflicts in Balochistan.

purple’n&#8217 wrote: »

The oil supplies to the west will be cut off, and Pakistan, a nuclear power where Musharraf is just about hanging on by his fingertips may fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists.

I’m not sure about that, given the influence of the military in Pakistan.

Hellmo wrote:

Countries governed by fairytale nonsense shouldnt have access to nuclear weaponry

I believe the US falls into that category.

Hellmo wrote:

Mutual annhililation only deters those that fear death and dont fully beleive in heaven. Iran strikes me as a country that could possibly have enough zealots/fairy folk to acually WELCOME an apocalypse.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t believe in heaven. I play with home-made explosives every day. Wouldn’t nuclear war be just dandy?!?

Hellmo wrote:

By no means is the US perfect but their not AS insane

I did not realise their was an International Insanity Index.

Let’s also not forget that the current regime in Iran has come about due to US interference.

Hellm0

djpbarry wrote:

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t believe in heaven. I play with home-made explosives every day. Wouldn’t nuclear war be just dandy?!?

What? I dont think you read that paragraph correctly, my point was to say that people who dont want to die fear death. People who beleive in such nonsense concepts as martyrdom dont. I dont get exactly what you were saying in reply there 0_o

djpbarry wrote:

I did not realise their was an International Insanity Index.

Does there really need to be? I think we both know the stabler of the two regimes(and also the saner).

djpbarry wrote:

Let’s also not forget that the current regime in Iran has come about due to US interference.

Lets say someone takes a sh*t on your floor. If they want to clean it up themselves why would you stop them?

Instant Karma

Hellm0 wrote:

Does there really need to be? I think we both know the stabler of the two regimes(and also the saner).

now I know your having a laugh. the US is as morally bankrupt as they come. How many countries have they interfered with, central/south america ring any bells? What about the Shah in Iran, I think it's about time you opened a history book and absorbed some credible information rather than label those with a counter argument 'childish'.

djpbarry

Hellm0 wrote:

What? I dont think you read that paragraph correctly, my point was to say that people who dont want to die fear death. People who beleive in such nonsense concepts as martyrdom dont. I dont get exactly what you were saying in reply there

Apologies, I mis-interpreted your statement. Allow me to re-phrase:

I totally believe in heaven. Nuclear war could mean I'll get there quicker. Wouldn't that be just dandy ?!?

Hellm0 wrote:

Does there really need to be? I think we both know the stabler of the two regimes(and also the saner).

Honestly, no. No I do not .

Hellm0 wrote:

Lets say someone takes a sh*t on your floor. If they want to clean it up themselves why would you stop them?

I fully agree with Instant Karma here - you are in dire need of a history lesson man.

Hellm0

Instant Karma wrote:

now I know your having a laugh. the US is as morally bankrupt as they come. How many countries have they interfered with, central/south america ring any bells? What about the Shah in Iran, I think it's about time you opened a history book and absorbed some credible information rather than label those with a counter argument 'childish'.

Need I repeat myself? I have not once stated America is "morally" superior to Iran. Morality does not come into this picture as far as I'm concerned.

Yes I am well aware of the US involvement in south American politics and their meddleing with the democratic process. I am aware of the sordid side of America's foreign policy and their past(and current) wrongdoing.

What I AM aware of is the religious/dogmatic views of Iran's present regime. I am not saying America is a secular beacon of virtue, but rather that it is the lesser of two evils IN MY EYE'S due to its domestic policy in comparison to that of a muslim nation.

If a nation's domestic policy is one of enforced ignorance and religious literalism then their foreign policy cannot be trustworthy. This is a crime the US is partially guilty for, though not to the degree that Iran is/has been.

My main point here is that Iran should be invaded and the regime in place replaced. If the US are willing to throw the bodies into the meat grinder to do this, so be it(though at present I agree with previous posters, this is a logistical impossibility). I say this as I fully beleive any nation who lets religious dogma and archaic moral's based upon the musings of a man who married a 6 year old girl guide their policies should be toppled.


PS. If your going to sudjest I'm ignorant dont mention continents and expect me to fill in the gaps just because you phrase your insults as questions. That just makes YOU look ignorant. Especially when you misrepresent a previous reply of mine to another poster as labeling people childish. That poster did not pose a counter arguement in the first place but rather resorted to dubbing my arguements as "stupid". Read the post if your going to quote me.

Hellm0

djpbarry wrote:

I totally believe in heaven. Nuclear war could mean I'll get there quicker. Wouldn't that be just dandy ?!?

Good luck with that.

djpbarry wrote:

Honestly, no. No I do not .

Why am I not suprised.

djpbarry wrote:

I fully agree with Instant Karma here - you are in dire need of a history lesson man.

And which particular part of history do you beleive I am lacking knowledge of which counters all the arguements I have put forward?

djpbarry

Hellm0 wrote:

What I AM aware of is the religious/dogmatic views of Iran's present regime. I am not saying America is a secular beacon of virtue, but rather that it is the lesser of two evils IN MY EYE'S due to its domestic policy in comparison to that of a muslim nation.

If a nation's domestic policy is one of enforced ignorance and religious literalism then their foreign policy cannot be trustworthy. This is a crime the US is partially guilty for, though not to the degree that Iran is/has been.

My main point here is that Iran should be invaded and the regime in place replaced.

And presumably, when we have rid the world of the greater of the two evils (Iran), we should turn our attention to the lesser of the two, (i.e. the US). Would this involve a similar carpet-bombing strategy?

Hellm0

djpbarry wrote:

And presumably, when we have rid the world of the greater of the two evils (Iran), we should turn our attention to the lesser of the two, (i.e. the US). Would this involve a similar carpet-bombing strategy?

I was thinking bombs but I prefer good old fashioned germ warfare. A nation so fat is bound to be susceptible!

jonny72

Hellm0 wrote:

My main point here is that Iran should be invaded and the regime in place replaced.

Iran should be invaded? by who? you? are you gonna be in the front lines with that kinda talk?.. I am guessing, hmmm no.

Germany and Japan did insanely bad things for a long time. When their time came the people accepted it. You cannot 'invade' a country to replace a regime unless said country is in a very very dire situation. Iran is not even vaguely close to that situation.

People who say that a country has to be invaded to replace regimes are generally very right wing machiavellian types who consistently believe the ends justifies the means. Is it worth the death and destruction to gamble on the hope that Iran might be a better place in 25 years? What if your families life was on the line would you be saying the same thing?

I've said this before and I'll say it again, all these fox news warhawks screaming for an Iranian invasion have never ever EVER once wanted an "regime change invasion" in North Korea, even before NK had nukes, and the situation in NK has always been MUCH worse than Iran, I mean you can go for holidays to Iran for christsake.. the whole thing is a purely racist anti-muslim thing from top to bottom.

Nick_oliveri

jonny72 wrote:

have never ever EVER once wanted an "regime change invasion" in North Korea, even before NK had nukes, and the situation in NK has always been MUCH worse than Iran.

I was very surprised when Amedinajad didnt mention this in his talks in America.

Akrasia

Hellm0 wrote:

If a nation's domestic policy is one of enforced ignorance and religious literalism then their foreign policy cannot be trustworthy.

Hold on a minute, you're advocating the invasion and obliteration of a country with the population of about 65 million people, the same as france, just because you don't think they can be trusted?

You're basing your foreign policy on irrational fear and advocating a serious war crime that would leave millions dead, what for? in case Iran might at some point in the future invade us?

You do realise that your criteria for untrustworthy governments extends to pretty much every state in the middle east. Do you think they should all be invaded and regime changed?

Nick_oliveri

Sure jaysus, why dont they just invade or bomb Saudi Arabia? Oh yeah thats right...

moe_sizlak

Tristrame wrote:

I doubt anything of the sort is planned at the moment.
For one a democratic controlled congress wouldnt allow it and for two,theres likely to be a regime change in the whitehouse in the fall of 2008 anyway.

the democrats have been a huge let down since taking over congress , they have blocked absoultley none of bushes requests as regards more money for the iraq war , the democrats are afraid of being branded anti troops so they just keep agreeing to more money as the republicans sell it to the public as money to keep the troops equiped

as regards iran , israel are the main ones pushing for a strike on iran and we all know how much influence the israelis have in washington , while the really hawkish israelis are more cosy with republicans , most jews in the usa vote democrat and no democrat with any ambition will vote against jewish interests

as regards the genuine reasons for war with iran , there are none as yet , they are close to a decade away from having a bomb and right now there president is very unpopular in his own country , the best way to rally the iranian people around there president and the ayotllahs would be for the usa to strike , it would would galvanise the country and give creedance to the hardliners and islamic fundamentalists who are loosing support with the iranian youth , the iranian youth are compared to other mid eastern countries quite well educated and liberal in outlook
an attack on iran would undoubtably drive theese young people into the arms of the mullahs

moe_sizlak

Hellm0 wrote:

Better the devil you know they say. Besides the US brand of fairy tale nonsense doesnt include stoneing people to death(at least not nowadays).

I dont beleive anyone should have access to the bomb(with the possible exception of me) but then I deal in realities, if anyones going to have it I'd prefer it be a western country.
Mutual annhililation only deters those that fear death and dont fully beleive in heaven. Iran strikes me as a country that could possibly have enough zealots/fairy folk to acually WELCOME an apocalypse.

youve obviously never heard of the christian right in the usa , a group who believe that in order for the second coming to happen , the jews must have there homeland in the mid east and they must be under attack and the usa must intervene to protect the jews so as to pave the way for the arrival of jesus
im not making this up , the christian right who are an integral part of the republican partys election campaign and none more so than the present republican administration , they have many well know public faces who speak about how israel must at all times be supported ,
they have no love for jews at all but see the whole thing as part of bible teaching

Mr.Micro

Nobody has the moral right to invade another country for what ever reason that can be contrived .Look around the world and there are many countries with extremely harsh regimes, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Zimbabwe, South Africa when under white power, China,Russia ,Burma , North Korea and many more .None of these have been invaded or is there a threat to do so . Iran is just an obsession that US want rid of, and it so happens its nuclear ambition is convenient as an excuse to do so or at least threaten . Why not regime change all the other countries ? Not near Israel and Iraq I guess. Innocent people die and all for what ? So the americans can live their lives in peace and mostly affluence a million miles away from the wars their foreign policy start.

moe_sizlak

Mr.Micro wrote:

Nobody has the moral right to invade another country for what ever reason that can be contrived .Look around the world and there are many countries with extremely harsh regimes, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Zimbabwe, South Africa when under white power, China,Russia ,Burma , North Korea and many more .None of these have been invaded or is there a threat to do so . Iran is just an obsession that US want rid of, and it so happens its nuclear ambition is convenient as an excuse to do so or at least threaten . Why not regime change all the other countries ? Not near Israel and Iraq I guess. Innocent people die and all for what ? So the americans can live their lives in peace and mostly affluence a million miles away from the wars their foreign policy start.

when have white people ever ruled saudi arabia
oh and not to be condoning minority rule but black people were not only better off under white rule in zimbabwe than they are now under mugabe , they were most likely better off in south africa under aparthied than they are under mugabe right now , such is the appalling condition there

dave2pvd

moe_sizlak wrote:

youve obviously never heard of the christian right in the usa , a group who believe that in order for the second coming to happen , the jews must have there homeland in the mid east and they must be under attack and the usa must intervene to protect the jews so as to pave the way for the arrival of jesus ............they have many well know public faces who speak about how israel must at all times be supported , they have no love for jews at all but see the whole thing as part of bible teaching

Just a point of clarification: it's not all of the Christian right that hold this belief true. It's a minority. Plus, the term Christian Right is not a single group. The term refers to many different and separate groups/parties/lobbyists/churches/individuals.

Also: not all Jews vote Democrat. A lot of people don't realise that some of the more hawkish movers and shakers in Washington are Jewish. Such people vote Republican. I don't profess to know the percentage of Jews that vote Republican, but it is considerable. Think about it: Republicans and Jews make good bed fellows - both are traditionally fiscally conservative and pro military.

sovtek

moe_sizlak wrote:

when have white people ever ruled saudi arabia
oh and not to be condoning minority rule but black people were not only better off under white rule in zimbabwe than they are now under mugabe , they were most likely better off in south africa under aparthied than they are under mugabe right now , such is the appalling condition there

I'm not sure what you are answering or referring to here. It's highly arguable that either were better off under either white ruled regime.
Actually if ya wanna go that route Russians were better off under the Soviet Union.

Mr.Micro

moe_sizlak wrote:

when have white people ever ruled saudi arabia
oh and not to be condoning minority rule but black people were not only better off under white rule in zimbabwe than they are now under mugabe , they were most likely better off in south africa under aparthied than they are under mugabe right now , such is the appalling condition there

I did not say S Arabia was ruled by white people ,it was S Africa I was referring to. The point I was making was not that the regime then was better or worse now, I was referring to all harsh regimes including the current tyrant Mugabe .The point in essence being that the US appears to be very selective as to which regime needs change ,it always appears to end up at Iran.In reality we are spoilt for choice with the multitude of despicable regimes in the world that need changing.

Hobbes

Hellm0 wrote:

I'd prefer it if you didnt resort to name calling

It is not name calling. If a person is saying they are better because they aren't as bad as someone else then that is bloody stupid.

Back in my day we used to compare ourselves to the best and try to be like them or better. Not this half-assed excuse method to justify all manners of crap.

As I said, I deal in realities. Would prefer that Iran had nuclear capabilies and not the US?

I am dealing in realities. Iran is not pursuing Nuclear Weapons. They are pursuing nuclear power. Both are very different.

USA already has nuclear weapons. Has used them and since Bush came to office have green lighted the use of nukes in the battlefield.

By no means is the US perfect but their not AS insane.

Define what you mean by Insane?
- Attacking a country without evidence: USA 1 / Iran 0
- Using Nukes. Saying Nukes are ok to use in battle: USA 1 / Iran 0
- Religious nutters in positions of power in government: USA 1 / Iran 1
- Teaching religion as science: USA 1 / Iran 0
- Torturing people: USA 1 / Iran 1

Please point out what parts of Iran are as dangerous as the USA. I would really like to know. For that matter point out how Iran is more dangerous then Pakistan.

Did you know that the president of Iran isn't a dictator? (Bush tells everyone he is).


was thinking about it.. If the USA does attack Iran I can tell you who won't stand up. The American people.

dave2pvd

Hobbes wrote:

was thinking about it.. If the USA does attack Iran I can tell you who won't stand up. The American people.

Not so sure about that.

Despite what you may choose to read/watch, the US does not act en bloc.

On the other hand, sheep and other pastoral livestock, do.

moe_sizlak

dave2pvd wrote:

Just a point of clarification: it's not all of the Christian right that hold this belief true. It's a minority. Plus, the term Christian Right is not a single group. The term refers to many different and separate groups/parties/lobbyists/churches/individuals.

Also: not all Jews vote Democrat. A lot of people don't realise that some of the more hawkish movers and shakers in Washington are Jewish. Such people vote Republican. I don't profess to know the percentage of Jews that vote Republican, but it is considerable. Think about it: Republicans and Jews make good bed fellows - both are traditionally fiscally conservative and pro military.

if you check back to my earlier post in this thread you will see that i said that hawkish israelis are cosiest with the republican party

most jews in the usa do vote democrat and always have , this is because nearly all conservative christians in the usa vote republican and as most people know , conservative christians in the usa traditionally do not care for anyone that is not a W.A.S.P
add to that the fact that jews in the usa tended to be quite visible in the world of entertainment and other forms of art , theese things have been traditonally at odds with puritan values
jews like catholics and blacks in the usa are minoritys and minoritys have always voted over whelmingly democrat

amen

not a regular poster on this forum but this looks like a fun discussion so here goes

Nobody has the moral right to invade another country for what ever reason that can be contrived

I think countries can have a moral right to invade in order to protect innocents civilians and where there is popular support for such an invasion e.g Burma in its current form.

As for Iran its people seem relatively happy so no reason to invade/bomb after all Iran has signed up to the relevant Nuclear power laws which is more than be said for the USA/Pakistan etc. An interesting fact about Iran (and Iraq) both had democratically elected governments (left leaning socialist) and both were overthrown with USA support (Sha in Iran and B'Atth pary in Iraq).

As for the gay rights issues in Iran I'm not sure how old the rest of you are but I remember gay rights being legalised in Ireland in the 1990s so maybe we should have had a regime change here?

As for stopping the USA currently it would be hard for anyone to stop them in a conventional war(maybe Russia) but 15-20 years China/India will be serious regional if not global players. Part of the USA plan is to stop these countries from developing into competitors.

Someone mentioned Venisvela (spelling) maybe the USA will attack here overthrow Chevaz ? Iran might be a good distraction.

As for draft. There may be a potential problem with this. Women are now allowed to join the Armed Services and are citizens. So there may be lawsuits either A: Preventing the draft as it is discrimatory B:Drafting women and what ever about body bags of men coming home no politician in the USA wants to see women coming in body bags.

As for Israel the USA might help bu Israel always had and always will do its own thing for its own interests.

moe_sizlak

amen wrote:

not a regular poster on this forum but this looks like a fun discussion so here goes


I think countries can have a moral right to invade in order to protect innocents civilians and where there is popular support for such an invasion e.g Burma in its current form.

As for Iran its people seem relatively happy so no reason to invade/bomb after all Iran has signed up to the relevant Nuclear power laws which is more than be said for the USA/Pakistan etc. An interesting fact about Iran (and Iraq) both had democratically elected governments (left leaning socialist) and both were overthrown with USA support (Sha in Iran and B'Atth pary in Iraq).

As for the gay rights issues in Iran I'm not sure how old the rest of you are but I remember gay rights being legalised in Ireland in the 1990s so maybe we should have had a regime change here?

As for stopping the USA currently it would be hard for anyone to stop them in a conventional war(maybe Russia) but 15-20 years China/India will be serious regional if not global players. Part of the USA plan is to stop these countries from developing into competitors.

Someone mentioned Venisvela (spelling) maybe the USA will attack here overthrow Chevaz ? Iran might be a good distraction.

As for draft. There may be a potential problem with this. Women are now allowed to join the Armed Services and are citizens. So there may be lawsuits either A: Preventing the draft as it is discrimatory B:Drafting women and what ever about body bags of men coming home no politician in the USA wants to see women coming in body bags.

As for Israel the USA might help bu Israel always had and always will do its own thing for its own interests.

you render an otherwise sensible post absurd by comparring the treatment of gays in ireland in the early nineties to that of iran now
gays in ireland were never sentenced to death

lostexpectation

Hellm0 wrote:

If a nation's domestic policy is one of enforced ignorance and religious literalism then their foreign policy cannot be trustworthy. This is a crime the US is partially guilty for, though not to the degree that Iran is/has been.

My main point here is that Iran should be invaded and the regime in place replaced. If the US are willing to throw the bodies into the meat grinder to do this, so be it

so they should regime change the regime their regime change, you know they helped install the current regime in Iran...

Liam Byrne

lostexpectation wrote:

so they should regime change the regime their regime change, you know they helped install the current regime in Iran...

Makes no odds to the U.S......they were the ones who helped install Saddam, too, remember ?

Mr.Micro

Liam Byrne wrote:

Makes no odds to the U.S......they were the ones who helped install Saddam, too, remember ?

Thats what the US does messes with other countries .Iraq was armed to the teeth by US against Iran in early eighties and Saddam was the good guy then.

You Suck!

Hopefully Isreal will unsuccessfully attack Iran nuclear facilitys leading to the Iranians still obtaining the bomb and retalitating in a short time span thus invoking the us nuclear shield with Iran getting nuked thus leading to the middle east fracturing with the chinese and the russians entering the game with further nukage leading to the removal of this earth of the place of origin of all religious and stratigic strife that curses the modern world thus ushering in a golden age of enlightenment. Mankind shall bask in the glory of its new radioactive glass parking lot.........or not.

purple'n'gold

I will repeat what I said before, if the Iranians want a bomb badly enough, they can just buy one. Or the material and expertise to make one. If you have the money you can buy anything.

bonkey

lostexpectation wrote:

you know they helped install the current regime in Iran...

Only insofar as they installed the regime which the current regime overthrew to come to power.

wes

Hellm0 wrote:

My main point here is that Iran should be invaded and the regime in place replaced. If the US are willing to throw the bodies into the meat grinder to do this, so be it(though at present I agree with previous posters, this is a logistical impossibility). I say this as I fully beleive any nation who lets religious dogma and archaic moral's based upon the musings of a man who married a 6 year old girl guide their policies should be toppled.

What your proposing is a war crime, unless the UN authorizes military intervention. It so sad that there are actually people who support war crimes.

Of course any intervention by the US would be counter productive. As the regime would be strengthened in a jingoistic out pouring from the population. Iranian dissidents, reformers and liberals are all against any foreign intervention, but are especially military, as such intervention would destroy there cause.

So an US attack or regime change would fail, hell we have seen the US isn't exactly great at regime change in anyways, the resulting catastrophe in Iraq shows as much. Why, anyone would think another such war by the US would be any better is puzzling. Also, the fact that any war on Iran without UN authorization would be basically a war crime should be enough to show people that any such war would be wrong, but sadly such rules seem to only apply when its convent to those who support aggression from Western nations.

Manic Moran

Technically it's not a war crime, it's a war. In some circles, it can be considered a crime which is a war, or a war which is a crime, but a war crime is a crime comitted in the conduct of a war.

NTM

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

Technically it's not a war crime, it's a war. In some circles, it can be considered a crime which is a war, or a war which is a crime, but a war crime is a crime comitted in the conduct of a war.

NTM

Technically speaking or not, you can't fudge this one.

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm

wes

Manic Moran wrote:

Technically it's not a war crime, it's a war. In some circles, it can be considered a crime which is a war, or a war which is a crime, but a war crime is a crime comitted in the conduct of a war.

NTM

It would be considered a "War of Aggression", which is considered a crime (i think its considered to be among one of the worst). Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression I know its Wikipedia, but its fairly accurate on this. If you want better sources, there are links to the UN website, but there is a lot more reading in those site when compared to the Wikipedia entry.

Your right, its not a war crime, my terminology was wrong, but it is as you say still a crime and considered to among the worse.

**EDIT**

FYI provided a much better link above.

Manic Moran

FYI wrote:

Technically speaking or not, you can't fudge this one.
http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm

Yes I can. That page says that they haven't come to an enforceable agreement on the subject and as such it is not yet an actionable offense under the court. Note the multiple references to draft statutes and possible alternative definitions. I am, however, bemused by the total lack of reference to 'Jus ad Bellum' on that page, (Beyond the reference to the UN Charter which contains a phrase of similar content) which I think is a bit of a concern.

NTM

purple'n'gold

War crimes are only committed by the loosing side. That’s why Germans and Japanese were tried for war crimes after WW2.

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

Yes I can. That page says that they haven't come to an enforceable agreement on the subject and as such it is not yet an actionable offense under the court. Note the multiple references to draft statutes and possible alternative definitions. I am, however, bemused by the total lack of reference to 'Jus ad Bellum' on that page, (Beyond the reference to the UN Charter which contains a phrase of similar content) which I think is a bit of a concern.

NTM

Wrong again, the ICC has jurisdiction to punish for the crime of aggression, however an agreeable definition for the crime has not been found. The usual parties have been fervently opposed to finding a definition for obvious reasons. In 2002 Bush removed Clinton's signature from the ICC treaty.

It's a crime alright, just one it has been made next or near impossible to convict one of.

Manic Moran

FYI wrote:

It's a crime alright, just one it has been made next or near impossible to convict one of.

How can anything be a crime if nobody can agree what constitutes such? Is not the requirement that it be something that is against the law? If there's no law on the books to cover it, it can't be a crime. (It may still be actionable under principles like tort, but that's a different issue)

NTM

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

How can anything be a crime if nobody can agree what constitutes such? Is not the requirement that it be something that is against the law? If there's no law on the books to cover it, it can't be a crime. (It may still be actionable under principles like tort, but that's a different issue)

NTM

It's one of the many contradictions in international law, whereby the people that create the laws, or in this case hinder the application, are unlikely to ever suffer the punishment endowed upon them in the case they commit it.

"However, Article 5.2 of the Rome Statute states that "The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations."[6] The Assembly of States Parties of the ICC may adopt such a definition at a review conference scheduled for 2009.[7]

A United Nations factsheet on the ICC states:

What about aggression? Isn't it in the Statute?
Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression."

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

Manic Moran

Right. So the problem still remains. Nobody knows exactly what constitutes an actionable crime. Everyone has their opinion, but some people have an opinion on cannibalism too.

NTM

CptSternn

The ICC as well as the Geneva Convention also state that the prevailing nation cannot execute the leader of the conquered nation, which America did anyway with Sadaam.

That being said bush removed Clinton's signature - he did the same with the Kyoto treaty.

Funny thing though - the President doesn't have the power or authority to do that - in fact, the American Constitution has specific rules about this, but bush did it anyway.

His party has just enough power right now to keep the democrats from investigating this (and many other dodgy dealings).

bonkey

CptSternn wrote:

The ICC as well as the Geneva Convention also state that the prevailing nation cannot execute the leader of the conquered nation, which America did anyway with Sadaam.

No, they didn't. America did not execute Hussein, nor sentence him for execution.

FYI

bonkey wrote:

No, they didn't. America did not execute Hussein, nor sentence him for execution.

No, their puppet government did.

Manic Moran

CptSternn wrote:

That being said bush removed Clinton's signature - he did the same with the Kyoto treaty.

Funny thing though - the President doesn't have the power or authority to do that - in fact, the American Constitution has specific rules about this, but bush did it anyway.

You will note that Clinton signed shortly before he left office with a recommendation that the US Congress not ratify it until various changes were made. The changes were never made, so under the Bush presidency, the US remained non-participants in the ICC system. Given that a non-ratified signature is not binding, Bush was legally entitled to 'unsign.'

This is a similar situation as the US policy to Kyoto. Though the Clinton administration signed in 1997, they never submitted it to Congress for ratification because they didn't agree with some of the provisions. Bush has also declared a non-intention to submit to Congress until his concerns were addressed.

NTM

Hobbes

dave2pvd wrote:

Not so sure about that.

Despite what you may choose to read/watch, the US does not act en bloc.

On the other hand, sheep and other pastoral livestock, do.

You know I would of believed that some years ago but not now. Even with dissent in the country to the actions against the government is nil.

The speaker of the house has given up trying to stop the Iraq war saying anything they do is nix'ed by Bush.

You have an administration which at this point clearly lied to go to war, one or more committed treason out a CIA agent and Billions of US cash has vanished without trace. In that case I am not even talking about military billing procedures. Literally pallets of billions of hard currency has vanished into Iraq never to be seen again.

Yet these people are still in power.

If you had similar instances in a company that CEO would be in Jail long by now.

Seriously, the US population don't have the balls to stand up to their own government.