Iran Nuclear Standoff

[Derek Ortt]

we do not need to give Iran anything

A country in a position of strength should not concede anything. if we start offering concessions, we lose our position of strength.

Sometimes, the threat of force can be a powerful negotiating tactic. Worked very well with Pakistan after 9/11

[HURAKAN]

In that position, war is the only answer, because Iran feels the same way. They will not concede anything.

[Derek Ortt]

Iran SHOULD understand that we would crush them if we went in at full force. That's what we told Pakistan and Musharraf quickly relented and gave us what we wanted

I get the sense that Iran does not think we will do anything. The clerics will relent (assuming that they still have any authority over Kim Jong Il's puttet), as they did when Regan was innagurated, if they are convinced that we are serious

[Cookiely]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071023/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_1

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday that plans for a U.S.-led missle defense system in Europe are urgently needed to counter an emerging threat of attack by Iran.

"If (Iran) chooses to do so, and the international community does not take steps to prevent it, it is possible Iran could have this capability," Bush said. "And we need to take it seriously — now."

He said intelligence estimates show that Iran could have the capability to strike the United States and many European allies by 2015.



If that is true,is a omminous thing to have a nuclear Iran and if diplomacy fails,then the stick has to be enforced to stop them.

Why do we need a European defense system? Goodness knows we have enough nukes to send one ourselves. I don't get it.

[cycloneye]

The ideal thing would be for all the countries that have nuclear weapons to eliminate them and have a free nuclear world.But I guess I am dreaming.

[Derek Ortt]

I disagree Luis

It was the nukes that prevented WW2 during the cold war. Both sides understood that war meant MAD.

Had we not have had the nukes, the USA and USSR likely would have fought

[Meso]

Iran SHOULD understand that we would crush them if we went in at full force. That's what we told Pakistan and Musharraf quickly relented and gave us what we wanted

That always seems to be the case,the pathetic "Give us what we want or we'll bomb you".A sad abuse of powers.A country should have the right to not allow any other country to interfere with them at all (Unless they themselves are starting a war with another country).You can't expect every country to support one's reasons (which are terrible,except in the minds of those gullible enough to actually eat up what they are being told the reasons are).

If one country has to get rid of nuclear weapons every country should.Iran destroys their weapons and then ends up with America invading them for some RESOURCE and they can't do anything.A perfect way to be able to get what you want,emobilize the country and then attack and take what one wants.Yeah,Great logic.

Some things Iran and most countries do may not be right,But the same goes for America.Not everything it does is justified and good.And finally it seems lots of people are starting to realize this and not follow blindly.But sadly some still do,It's really terrible to see how people can be convinced that black is really white.

[HURAKAN]

Finally someone agrees with me. Makes me feel less crazy.

For an individual to respect us, we must first respect that individual. We are not respecting the rights of others, and that's what has gotten us in trouble.

If one has the right to produce nuclear weapons, then everyone has the right to produce nuclear weapons. That's democracy.

If you don't want nuclear weapons to be used for the bad of humanity, then don't produce them yourself in the first place. Set the standard, set the rule.

Something else I learned from Iraq. When you mess with a Muslim country, you're messing with the Muslim world. It will not be a war between the US and Iran, but a war between the US and the Muslim world. Example, Iraq!

[Derek Ortt]

Equating a country that is threatening aggression (Iran) to one that does not (USA) is beyond laughable. All countries are NOT equal.

There is a major difference between the USA/NATO and USSR/Warsaw Pact having nukes TO PREVENT WAR than a country having nukes to COMMIT AGGRESSION

[HURAKAN]

Did Iraq invade the US or was the opposite? And don't say that the Iraq war was a retaliation towards the 9/11 attacks because we already know Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it and Hussein's government was not being a threat to US interests.

Furthermore, I don't remember since this problem began Iran being aggressive towards the US. It has always been the US being aggressive towards Iran trying to impose their will. Iran has always defended their right to build nuclear technology for its electric value.

After the Iraq incident, I just don't trust anything politicians say.

This is still the same bullying from a big power to a small power. "You do what I say and if not, it will destroy you." Wow, is that the "democracy" we want to show the world?

[Derek Ortt]

While Iraq did not have a direct connection with 9/11, it did violate the armistice that ended the first Gulf War. We were justified under int'l law to resume hostilities solely on that basis.

We have been hostile toward Iran since they attacked our embassy in 1979. That was an attack on American soil (an embassy is considered to be a part of the country), an there has never been any formal appology or reconcillation for that act of aggression

[HURAKAN]

Then we need to sit together and talk this problem out. Not bomb each other until one drops dead. Wars are bad for everyone. Just one human life is more valuable than oil, a piece of land, gold, or anything else in this world.

In the Iraq issue, it seems we are forgetting the fact that we entered the war because our president told us that Hussein's government was producing weapons of mass destruction and because there was a connection between Hussein's government and 9/11. In no moment, that I can recall, there was a reference to a violation of the armistice that ended the Gulf War.

[chadtm80]

Your right Hurakan.. We should just sit them down and aske them very very nicely not to bomb anyone.. I wonder why no one in the administration has thought of that

[HURAKAN]

Your right Hurakan.. We should just sit them down and aske them very very nicely not to bomb anyone.. I wonder why no one in the administration has thought of that

What I'm saying is that we should discuss our differences and work out a solution. War will make a country victorious but the cost is too much in my opinion. Every day in life we make compromises.

If we try my alternative and at the end there's not a compromise, then war is the only option. But with today's technology I fear at the mention of "war." It's bad for everyone. Killing each other is not going to solve the issue.

If you want another Iraq in your hands, go ahead. Be my guess. You will be fighting insurgency in two countries at the same time, and remember, Iran is no Iraq.

[cycloneye]

Your right Hurakan.. We should just sit them down and aske them very very nicely not to bomb anyone.. I wonder why no one in the administration has thought of that

Diplomacy is the word here.Even if the president of Iran is one of the worse dictators in the world,I think talking to the enemy is good.Now if talks dont work,then the military action can take place.

[Derek Ortt]

not offering full and UNRESTRICTED access to weapons inspectors was a violation of the armistice. In addition, them having missles that exceeded the 150km range limit was a violation

Any single violation is justification for resuming hostilities. We gave them many chances to comply fully, yet they refused to do so.

[Derek Ortt]

here is a proposal that maybe all could consider and debate

Agree upon an international law that prohibits the usage of nuclear weaponary under all circumstances, except when the following conditions are met.

1. Retaliation for a nuclear or chemical attack upon a state's civilian population

2. Retaliation for any tyoe of biological attack, including upon the military as that would have the possibility to spread to the civilian population.

3. Tactical usage of a nuclear weapon would be premitted under the following
A. used on the attacking state's own soil with fallout being contained within such state
B. Used strictly upon advancing enemy troops within 100km of the capital city
C. Used strictly as a defensive weapon and not part of a robust counter attack

or am I too niave in thinnking that Kim Jong mentally Ill and his Iranian allies would abide by these conditions

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

:uarrow: The ideal thing would be for all the countries that have nuclear weapons to eliminate them and have a free nuclear world.But I guess I am dreaming.

I agree, but like you I fear it will never happen.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

While Iraq did not have a direct connection with 9/11, it did violate the armistice that ended the first Gulf War. We were justified under int'l law to resume hostilities solely on that basis.

We have been hostile toward Iran since they attacked our embassy in 1979. That was an attack on American soil (an embassy is considered to be a part of the country), an there has never been any formal appology or reconcillation for that act of aggression

All invading Iraq did was make Iran, and the Shiite over all in the region, stronger. Even a weakened Saddam served the purpose of a counter weight to Iranian influence in the region.

[artist]

what I don't udnerstand is those that say - let's talk. We have tried talking to them? See what I mean? They have been going on to no avail. Iran will not comply with the UN resolutions or international law as it stands.

Monday, July 02, 2007 - ?2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, July 2 (IranMania) - Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said that the date of the second round of Iran-US talks on Iraq has not been determined yet, IRNA reported.

The first round of Iran-US talks on Iraq was held on May 28 in Baghdad at ambassadorial level. Iran's Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi-Qomi represented Iran and Ryan Crocker acted as US envoy.

"During the recent visit by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to Tehran, Iraq's invitation for holding the second round of the Iran-US talks was renewed," Hosseini said at his weekly press conference.

He added, "Iran has studied the first round of the talks. By the time the US officials clarify their stance on the issue, our response will be on the agenda."

He said, "In the first round of talks, we criticized the incorrect US policies on Iraq and presented solutions.

"Regretfully, in remark made by the US officials, we see no serious determination to correct the previous approaches."

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleVi ... nt+Affairs

Iran limits new nuclear negotiator

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - ?2005 IranMania.
Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment as required by the United Nations Security Council, said participants in the meeting who spoke under normal diplomatic rules.

And just hours before the talks, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, repeated his vow never to give in on that issue.

"Iran will not retreat one iota," he said on state-run television on a trip to Armenia, adding, "We are in favor of talks, but we will not negotiate with anyone about our right to nuclear technology."

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleVi ... entAffairs


Iran refuses to conceed on what is required of them. Talks are doing no good.
Unfortunately we do not live in an idealistic world where everyone wants to live in peace. I wish we did. And if you think everyone does desire that then I have a bridge I will sell you in china! There are those that it doesn't matter one bit if they go to war if it will accomplish their goals of destroying those that are not like them. We are a peace loving country whether others want to believe it or not. We will not allow ourselves to be bullied by others to the point it risks our own security, though and if that means we have to keep those that have less than pure desires for our countries peaceful living, then we will whatever it takes to keep them from bringing harm to us on our own soil.