Iraq cannot be "done" until the entire problem is done. In this conflict, nations are significantly less relevant than in the wars of the last century. Al Qaeda and its family of related organizations simply does not care about national boundaries. Only God is important to them. Iraq will continue to be a battle zone in this conflict for as long as this conflict continues -- as will New York, Washington D.C, Indonesia, the Philippines, and every other portion of the globe. A move by our forces from Iraq to Iran would be, to us, a monumental shift. To the enemy, it is an irrelevancy.
Kind of the reason I did done like this "done", not that it ever will be done at least not any time soon. There are also several ways to look at Iraq including #1 the most relevant getting the people of Iraq stablized and in control before we leave, and #2 for those who wish to continue to grasp at it as a war on terror issue, where again I say nothing like having your dog shit in your neighbors yard ---edit but yet I agree with you on the terror side of things Will especially
Fortunately the rest of the world, including the IAEA and EU, isn't waiting around to find out. That a logical theory must exist saying it MUST be nuclear weapons, isn't an option. In fact, it couldn't exist, which leads back to "inaction is the best course of action" that failed us in the 90s. Perhaps the opposite of the "mushroom cloud." Plenty of evidence already exists to make logical conclusions. Others have made those conclusions, which is why Iran is in the hot seat right now.
Gtech, I had a nice long winded responce to your continued back up argument of the IAEA and EU, instead of using that however I would first like to ask what actual proof are you basing your assumption on other than the IAEA and EU? The IAEA from any reading I have done has not stated it must be for nukes, do you have proof of the opposite? The EU is also getting extreme pressure from the US, just as the UN is, just more of a back alley pressure as the US wishes to appear not involved. Main reason the US does not wish to appear involved in the situation from my reads is credibility issues from Iraq. Point being base an invasion on another country simply because 2 organisations are working with another country on a solution, inspections are taking place, etc but no actual proof is just as flimsy if not flimsier than the reason we used for Iraq and look at the situation we are in now not only in Iraq but in the eyes of citizens and governments around the world. My patriotic love for the US, and the fact that Iran is an enemy of the US does make me believe it is nuclear weapons. My logical side however taking the facts into consideration does not show any real proof, only accusations many of which hold no water on their own without something to back them up. If you trully feel they are nuclear weapons then again what's your opinion total invasion or bombing run? You however are making this decision that they must be nuclear weapons off of assumptions and not facts. With some good intel that is backed up again I would totally support a bombing campaign, there however is nothing of the sort from anything I have read thus far. Another invasion of a country on accusations that could prove to be false could and more than likely would seriously effect the US not only in credibility but with anti US stances by both governments and or citizens that could very well hurt us as a country more than any terrorist organization could ever dream of.
Iran has to humble itself to international rules and regulations and are not exempted from it. They have lied and are still lying. At first it's a spiritual warfare. Underestimating the tactics of Iran can be a deadly endevour. What you think? - Will they announce the bomb? - or the attempt to make it? No one is against Iran's right to build nuclear power plants the save way. Therefore Iran has to prove and show good-will to the international community first. Trust building has to start from their site, but this is exactly what they are avoiding to do, even worse, they are threatening the world like mad dogs close to extortion. --and they would if they could--!!! hrblcantra - don't give it a chance to become radiant
Yes and so should all other countries, the US however on many occassions does break international rules and regulations so your point is? What specifically are they lying about now? I'm see no facts or proof, just wild accusations. As can underestimating an invasion based on assumptions with no proof and no backing of the international community. Of course not, possibly if they make one when they do they would. This is such a bad argument though you are making, it honestly is. So in other words no proof, doesn't matter the actual facts, just attack because of extremely wild assumptions? Huh? Even if they fully comply with all international law we would still be saying it's for nukes no other option, I don't buy this argument in the least. So what kind of good will are you looking for? The same could be said about the US to Iran could it not? So again no facts, just attack based on extremely wild assumptions? There was more 'proof' or supposed proof even if fabricated and distorted to invade Iraq, look at where that's left the US, not a very good situation to say the least!
If you are looking for proof in this thread, then you're in the wrong place. My opinions and jugdements some times( - that one I try to avoid but it's hard not to make any jugdements sometime) are based on a long time observation of the situation, giving all sides the same chance. Why do you think that the case will be brought before the security council by the end of this month? - or lets say nearly 100% - or have they canceled the meeting which was scheduled for the end of the month? If you want to find out about their lies then check up with the IAEA, they were lied to many times, not me. I don't think that they have made that up. If Iran complies to the regulations, they will not have any problems then to open up to the world a bit. Yes, the USA has made mistakes too and it's not OK. Flaming at the Americans and its govt is just showing the low standard people are having, especially politicians. One thing I can say for sure; I'm not afraid of America to act completely out of control but the middle eastern region as a hot-pot alltogether.
Umm ok, but still no facts. My assumption is that YES AGAIN IT PROBALLY IS FOR NUCLEAR weapons, there however are as of yet the proof or facts to back them up, and nobody on here saying it has to be Iran is showing any of these supposed proofs that hold any water. I am not pro Iran, I however am looking at the bigger picture and what the overall facts are at the moment. Yes and look who's forcing it or trying to, and who has now backed off because of little support for it. Bringing up to the security council does not prove anything, I'm looking for proof not wild accusations as I believe it can and will hurt my country the 'US' more in the long term if we INVADE Iran at this moment with the facts that are laid out at THIS TIME. I've actually read many of the reports, quotes, etc from the IAEA. I was asking what are they currently lying about? Does the lie justify an all out invasion or continued pressure and possible sanctions and any other means available to force Iran to comply. --edit including a possible bombing run I highly doubt this, sorry but I'd buy prancing unicorns are in my backyard before I would buy this argument. Not sure I'm realy understanding this statement. I am simply stating to use Iran not following an international law unless it's an extreme infraction is not a very good argument on it's own as even the USA is guilty of it at times, so is probally every other nation out there.
Real quick, anybody out there who has some good reads that prove Iran is making nuclear weapons and is an immediate threat to the US please post them for me and others to read. Man I'm not backing Iran, my whole dispute to this thread is 'invasion' at 'this time' where I feel arguments are being brought up for invasion purposes and I feel they are incorrect I am stating my take on it. Prove what I say wrong and I may agree on an 'invasion' at 'this time' I however think an invasion at this time is going to take some serious shit considering the US's overall condition reguardless if Iran has zero nukes or 1,000 at this time.
Here is a good example of international rules and regulations: Introduction There has been considerable (and a mostly successful) effort to set up an International Criminal Court (ICC). The purpose is to have a body that can prosecute serious crimes against humanity no matter who committed them and to try people for gross violations of human rights, such as those committed during military conflicts. In Rome, July 1998, the ICC was given the go-ahead with a vote of 120 to 7. The seven who voted against were USA, China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen. The U.S. opposed the ICC from the beginning, surprising and disappointing many people. Human rights organizations and social justice groups around the world, and from within the US, were very critical of the U.S. stance given its dominance in world affairs. The U.S. did eventually signed up to the ICC just before the December 2000 deadline to ensure that it would be a State Party that could participate in decision-making about how the Court works. However, By May 2002, the Bush Administration “unsigned†the Rome Satute. The U.S. threatened to use military force if U.S. nationals were held at the Hague The U.S. continues to pressure many countries to sign agreements not to surrender U.S. citizens to the ICC. But why would a country, often vocal in the area of human rights, and often amongst the first to promote human rights as a global issue in the past refuse to sign up to an international law and institution designed to protect human rights?
Let's see ........ Cause so many of the countries who are violaters would be in charge?? Kind of like having a pediphile for a judge to judge cases with pediphiles.
Was this the best you could come up with? Unlike USA, they can not just declare some one enemy combatant and imprison a person without any trial, this is a real open court with judges and defense lawyers. The court is managed by group of 18 judges: "During its first resumed session held in New York from 3 to 7 February 2003, the Assembly of States Parties elected the eighteen judges of the Court for a term of office of three, six, and nine years. The judges constitute a forum of international experts that represents the world's principal legal systems. Judges elected from list A who have established competence in criminal law and procedure, and the necessary relevant experience, whether as judge, prosecutor, advocate or in other similar capacity, in criminal proceedings." and here is the link to their bio: International Criminal Court Can you tell us which one is a pedophile or guilty of war crime? Is it the one from Canada, France, Ireland, England, Germany, Finland or Italy? Isn't the fact that USA refuses to join ICC, because Bush government wants free hand in committing war crimes?
The assumption that the EU and IAEA are taking this very seriously? What week hasn't gone by in the last months without a report about Iran regarding nuclear weapons? I think it's quite clear they are involved in negotiations with Iran. I don't contest they have or have not stated such, so the point is moot. I think we all know what their concern is, no? Do I need proof of the opposite to determine their already present concern for Iran's nuclear program? I've not read anything that says either or both are getting extreme pressure. I have read the US is backing their initiative. Do YOU have any proof of the this? That's not a point for me. I've clearly stated early on in my participation in this discussion that I do not support an invasion at this time. I prefer, as it should be, to let diplomatic efforts take their course. This is the second time you've mentioned this, and unfortunately it has no basis or foundation. I might also point out that just because you have not personally found enough proof does not mean they do not have it. I might also point out, again, this isn't about the US. This is about the world and the world is taking action in a diplomatic way to convince Iran to give up it's nuclear program. The WORLD is concerned. This is where I see the "both sides of the issue." The logical side shows plenty of proof. If Europe, let alone Jacques Chirac is concerned enough to undergo such negotiations, surely something must be ary. But that's just part of it. Evidence exists of virtually all (if not all) the components to easily construct (if they haven't already done so), a nuclear bomb. Combine that, with the "patriotic love" you refer to that leads you to believe it is nuclear weapons. They have the materials, they are playing cat/mouse games, making threats if sactions are applied. If the final chapter is simply waiting for them to step up to the microphone and say "we ARE building nuclear weapons," you might have to wait a while. Perhaps for that mushroom cloud to evolve. In the mean time, others find it necessary to take action before the cloud evolves. It appears both us believe it is nuclear weapons. Unless of course, you respond to clarify your comment above that you didn't really mean it that way. The invasion or bombing run is moot. I don't subscribe to that course of action at this point and have made that very clear. I also don't make excuses for terrorists or state sponsors of terrorism. I don't make excuses for countries whose governments bury women up to their necks and stone them to death because it was their fault they got raped. Making what decision? Let's clarify here, because you continue to suggest *decision* in the light of a bombing campaign, when I have clearly established my position on that. That you do, or do not support a bombing campaign has no bearing on anything. That is your position, not mine. I prefer to let the EU and IAEA, along with support from "most" of the rest of the world approach this issue with diplomatic efforts. I have no illusions they will work, but it's a process that shouldn't be entirely ignored either. This is not a US effort, this is a world effort. In the end, after Iran finishes playing their games and the EU, IAEA and the rest of the world has come to the conclusion that diplomatic efforts will not work (again, I have no illusions they will, but always hold the hope they might), then a course of action is needed which should not include "inaction is the best course of action." And at that time, if it's not already too late, the countries leading such efforts can/will determe a course of action. Unless of course, there is some mystery "oil for food" program or "oil vouchers" our allies can be bought out again, with. A bit of sarcasm there, but it's happened once before. Right now, I'm quite content that *others* are leading diplomatic efforts and I do think they are an important step. I just don't have faith they will result in anything favorable.
Gtech thanks for the post I will respond to it later when I have a bit more time. But as far as the US pressuring and molding the EU's stance I have many bookmarks on the subject, I will post some later. So in basic all reality we agree on the current stance, you however have no problem with simply buying anything our government says, or any other entity on our side without any real proof, I think that's where the real argument lays. However it is not having it both ways, patriotism can cloud judgement which is easy to see by many of the posters on here This only leads to speculation and not a logical factual basis. It's also much easier to believe in something if your country has that stance, I however am looking at relationships with other governments and citizens and trying my best not to allow my patriotic opinion cloud my overall opinion/judgement as I am looking at the long term impact on the US for actions at THIS TIME. The EU and IAEA are taking it seriously, I never said they weren't. However just because they are taking it seriously does not prove nuclear weapons now does it? Yes basically my stance, however it still does not show proof, proof the the rest of the world you keep bringing up is more than likely to buy at this moment. If it was up to me to attack, who knows I might if the US was out of Iraq, as you keep bringing up it's not up to me and I agree. It however will have a direct impact on the rest of the world which is what I am arguing against. Or in other words the facts and or arguments that are being brought up if any on how others throughout the world could easily discredit them. Make them credible and I'm certain others will agree with the US stance, and the EU, etc. Debate can be used many ways, to support your argument or to put out those facts you think need addressing first or to question those facts even if you agree with side A, by disputing side A it can help side A in the long term which is mostly what I am attempting to do here. Wild accusations or those that can appear to be so in the eyes of others do not help anyone against Iran or wishing for an invasion at this time, call the people on it in a discussion and maybe they can bring more facts to help their case, of which I still have yet to see.
Nope, I think it's best protected from people like you that would make the claim. My interest is my country.