US operating inside Iran? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Stompy · 01-18-2005, 10:26 AM

I hope we invade them.

...and I hope we fall in doing so.

This country disgusts me.

archer2371 · 01-18-2005, 10:31 AM

Well, for one thing, we've already got a special forces group that is operating in Afghanistan/Pakistan, it wouldn't be that hard to move over to Iran for a little bit. For another, special forces inside of a nation does not automatically mean we are going to war with a nation. There were several operations inside of Libya for the sole purpose of gathering information, and as far as I know, major military operations haven't been conducted inside Libya's border's. We're jumping to conclusions here based on one writer's sources that may or may not be credible.

roachboy · 01-18-2005, 10:37 AM

well, there's also this weekend's particularly bizarre sequence of public statements from cowboy george...

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...on/whbriefing/

note: the links are live in the original.

Quote:

The No-Accountability Moment
Tuesday, Jan 18, 2005; 11:10 AM

What were American voters thinking on Nov. 2?

Were they giving President Bush the thumbs-up on Iraq and a mandate to transform Social Security, as he has suggested in recent interviews?

Or did they vote for him in spite of their strong disapproval of his policies in Iraq and his handling of Social Security, as suggested in recent polls?

Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher wrote in Sunday's Washington Post about their 35 minutes with the president aboard Air Force One: "President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

" 'We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections,' Bush said. . . . 'The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me.' "

Here's the full transcript of the interview.

But Richard Morin and Dan Balz write in today's Washington Post that when it comes to Iraq, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that "58 percent disapprove of his handling of the situation to 40 percent who approve, and 44 percent said the war was worth fighting."

Among the other results: "Those surveyed gave Bush negative marks -- 38 percent approval vs. 55 percent disapproval -- for his handling of the Social Security issue. . . . But by 54 percent to 41 percent, the public supported a plan that would include a reduction in the rate of growth of guaranteed benefits and private savings accounts financed with a portion of payroll taxes. . . .

"The president's overall job approval rating stands at 52 percent, up slightly in the past month. Of all presidents in the postwar era who won reelection, only Richard M. Nixon had a lower job approval rating at the start of his second term. The other chief executives began their second term with job ratings of 60 percent or higher."

Here are the complete poll results, and the polling trend data.

A Pew Research Center poll last week also found that Bush's second-term policy agenda differs in several key respects from the public's.
Also From The Post Interview

Bush didn't explain why Washington D.C. is having to spend $12 million from its homeland security budget to provide security for the inauguration, simply saying that he was in favor of the event being secure. That's a nonanswer.

The president expressed delight about the press coverage of his drive to restructure Social Security. Part of the challenge, he said, is "getting the issue moving forward. That's why I love when you all put it in the front page of your newspaper, the different aspects of Social Security; so and so says this, and so and so says that -- because it means people are at least talking about it. And my view is, the more it's talked about and the more it's debated, the more likely it is people will recognize that we have a problem that we need to address."

I wonder if he'll continue to like it as more and more reporters call him on his facts. (See below.)

And here's a particularly pithy exchange:

"The Post: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?

"THE PRESIDENT: Because he's hiding."
Iran Watch

In an interview with NBC's David Gregory, Bush refused to rule out the potential for military action against Iran.

This comes in the wake of a Seymour Hersh story in the New Yorker in which Hersh says his sources tell him that Bush's next strategic target is Iran.

"The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities' strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control -- against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism -- during his second term," Hersh writes.

Also from the NBC interview:

"Gregory: It's clear, sir, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Do you think that the word of the United States is still good enough around the world for you or future presidents to ever again launch a preventative or pre-emptive military strike?

"Bush: Well, you might remember that the intelligence that we used was close to the intelligence that the U.N. had about Saddam Hussein and that many countries had about Saddam Hussein. But we did find out that he had the intent and the capability of making weapons, which in my judgment still made him a dangerous man, and the world understood how dangerous Saddam Hussein was.

"Gregory: Could you ever do it again, though?

"Bush: Well, hopefully we don't have to, but if we had to, to protect America, if, you know, if all else failed and we needed to use force to protect the citizens of the United States, I would do so."

But aren't American troops already overextended? Ronald Brownstein writes in his Los Angeles Times column: "The strains on the volunteer military from the war in Iraq are now unsettling as many Republicans as Democrats -- and exposing an enduring contradiction in President Bush's agenda."
Social Security

John Roberts of CBS News also had a go at the president. Here's the video.

"Will private accounts by themselves fix Social Security?" Roberts asked.

"There's gonna be -- it's very important for people to put all options on the table with the exception of effecting those who have already retired like I have said and without raising the payroll tax -- other than that I'm open minded," Bush replied.

"Will you absolutely have to cut benefits for future retirees -- adjust the formula by which they're calculated -- in order to keep Social Security solvent?" Roberts asked.

"Well, we'll work with congress on all different ways to address the issue but one thing is for certain -- if we don't act, in other words if we fall for the line that nothing is wrong with the system, we'll either have to raise payroll taxes significantly or slash benefits and that's pretty clear."

"So was that a yes or a no?" Roberts asked.

"That is I'm working with Congress to come up with a solution," Bush said.

Bush also acknowledged that he's working under a deadline: "We got to get moving and get some things done before, before people kind of write me off."
It Just Ain't So

Maybe Bush won't be so delighted about these Social Security stories.

Karen Tumulty and Eric Roston write in Time magazine about Bush's repeated insistence that Social Security will be "flat bust, bankrupt" by the time workers in their 20s retire, will have to reduce benefits by 2018, and will be bankrupt by 2040.

"That sounds pretty scary -- except that it's not true. What will actually happen in 2018, according to the Social Security trustees who oversee the program, is that the money paid out in benefits will begin to exceed the amount collected in taxes. And since Social Security will run a surplus until then (and has been running one for some time), it has billions available that it can tap to fill the gap. Even under conservative estimates, the system as it stands will have enough money to pay all its promised benefits until 2042 and most of its obligations for decades after.

"What's more, even if you take the President at his word -- that a crisis and bankruptcy are fast approaching -- the introduction of private accounts does nothing to slow that process. On the contrary, it makes things worse, by diverting payroll taxes from current retiree benefits and bringing the end of surpluses that much closer."

MSNBC's Martin Wolk makes some of the same points: "Social Security is years away from anything that honestly could be described as a financial crisis. But that has not stopped President Bush from trying to whip up enthusiasm for his proposed personal retirement accounts by warning of an imminent disaster."

So what's this really all about?

"Just as Bush believes democracy has the power to transform places like Iraq, so too is he convinced that privatization of Social Security could recharge America's future," Tumulty and Roston write.

In his radio address this weekend, incidentally, Bush said: "Saving Social Security is an economic challenge. But it is also a profound moral obligation."
The Bush You (Really) Don't Know

Richard Wolffe weighs in with a Newsweek cover story about "the George Bush you don't know":

"As he starts his final four years in the White House, President Bush is by far the biggest agent of change in his own cabinet. Whether he's remaking his team or plotting his second-term policies, Bush's leadership style belies his caricature as a disengaged president who is blindly loyal, dislikes dissent and covets his own downtime. In fact, Bush's aides and friends describe the mirror image of a restless man who masters details and reads avidly, who chews over his mistakes and the failings of those around him, and who has grown ever more comfortable pulling the levers of power. Of course, those closest to Bush have a vested interest in singing his praises. But they also make a compelling case that the president is a more complex and engaged character than his popular image suggests. And that he -- not Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or anyone else -- bears the full weight of responsibility for the ultimate successes and failures of his reign."
The Bush Dynasty

John F. Harris writes in The Washington Post: "One of the 43rd president's achievements in winning reelection, according to Bush family friends and historians, is to ease the sting of the 41st president's failure to do so a dozen years earlier. The president's victory also establishes firmly a fact that earlier was open to dispute: The Bushes now belong in the top tier of political families in U.S. history."
Agenda Watch

Kenneth T. Walsh writes in U.S. News & World Report: "His critics warn of endless perils and pitfalls, but Bush sees a world filled with opportunity, from the alleys of the Middle East to the classrooms of Middle America. In his inaugural address, he will summon America to lead a 'march of freedom' at home and abroad, U.S. News has learned. While the war on terrorism remains the central mission of his presidency, he wants to emphasize domestic policy in 2005. And he feels compelled to expand liberty, or his vision of it, at home by creating what he calls an 'ownership society' in which individuals keep more of their own money through tax cuts, control more of their retirement by investing part of their Social Security funds in private accounts, and improve their kids' education by increasing the accountability of schools.

"The question, of course, is what happens when Bush's big ideas run into some harsh realities."

Edwin Chen writes in the Los Angeles Times: "As he prepares to launch his second term, President Bush is aiming for nothing less than a legacy that would rank him among America's great presidents."

Rick Klein writes in the Boston Globe: "Republicans in Congress are growing increasingly vocal in their opposition to major items on President Bush's agenda, calling into question the likelihood of Bush's ambitious second-term program passing, even as he prepares to take the oath of office with an expanded majority of his own party."
Bush and the Lord, Part I

James G. Lakely writes in the Washington Times: "President Bush's declaration that he can't imagine anyone serving in the Oval Office 'without a relationship with the Lord' has pleased groups that say public expressions of faith have been discouraged for too long."

See my Jan. 12 column for more.
Bush and the Lord, Part II

Bush on Friday proclaimed Sunday to be Religious Freedom Day: "I encourage all Americans to reflect on the great blessing of religious freedom, to endeavor to preserve this freedom for future generations, and to commemorate this day through appropriate events and activities in homes, schools, and places of worship.

He also proclaimed Sunday to be National Sanctity of Human Life Day: "I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies in our homes and places of worship and to reaffirm our commitment to respecting the life and dignity of every human being."
Bush and the Lord, Part III

From the text of Bush's speech yesterday honoring the life and legacy of Martin Luther King: "Martin Luther King also knew that man's right to be free is rooted in something far beyond the charters of a country. He believed and he knew that the image of God we share is a source of our dignity as human beings and the basis for our equality. He believed and he knew that the teachings of Jesus stand in eternal judgment of oppression. He believed and he knew that the God who made us for freedom will bring us to freedom."
Bush and the Lord, Part IV

Peter Wallsten, Tom Hamburger and Nicholas Riccardi write in the Los Angeles Times that Bush's initiative to support faith-based social services and reach out to black pastors across the nation, "form a little-known chapter in the playbook of Bush's 2004 reelection campaign -- and may mark the beginning of a political realignment long sought by senior White House advisor Karl Rove and other GOP strategists....

"The White House adamantly denies that the faith initiative is a political tool. But the program has provoked criticism that the GOP is seeking to influence new supporters, especially African Americans, with taxpayer funds."
Bush and the Lord, Part V

Elisabeth Bumiller writes in the New York Times about the man who's really writing Bush's inaugural speech: Michael Gerson.

"Mr. Gerson would not preview the substance of the speech, which is certain to include the kind of religious language that Mr. Gerson, an evangelical Christian, is known for. But he did say the president would set out the big themes of his foreign and domestic policies in Thursday's Inaugural Address and follow up with details in his State of Union address early next month. . . .

"Mr. Bush has often talked about that struggle in the context of religion, and has included religious rhetoric in the major speeches of his first term. The language has angered many of Mr. Bush's critics and unsettled some religious leaders, who say that Mr. Bush sounds more like a preacher than the president of a secular nation. Mr. Gerson is behind much of that prose, although it is speechwriters' etiquette never to claim authorship."

Bumiller notes that Gerson's role in the White House is about to get even greater.

"Mr. Gerson is now in the process of leaving speechwriting for what is expected to be a promotion to a larger policy role on the president's staff. William McGurn, a former Wall Street Journal editorial writer, has moved into Mr. Gerson's old job as chief speechwriter."
Inauguration Watch

Here's another finding from the latest Washington Post poll: Two out of three Americans favor a more subdued inauguration, including nearly half of those who voted for Bush and eight out of 10 supporters of Democrat John F. Kerry.

Nevertheless, the festivities begin today.

Timothy Dwyer and Michael Laris write in The Washington Post: "About 2 p.m., President Bush is expected to be at MCI Center for 'Saluting Those Who Serve,' part of a program that includes the swearing-in and inaugural speech, a youth concert hosted by the Bush twins, fireworks, and black-tie balls and private lunches and dinners for donors who are underwriting the cost of the week. . . .

"The MCI event, to be hosted by actor Kelsey Grammer and expected to feature 7,000 military personnel in the audience, will draw on letters from members of the armed forces past and present as a way to link the war in Iraq -- and America's commander in chief -- with historic military struggles."

Jill Lawrence writes in USA Today: "Disaffected voters can protest President Bush's second inauguration Thursday from the comfort of their own homes. Anger at Bush has inspired national calls to fast, pray, skip work, buy nothing and wear black."

She offers up a list of protest Web sites.

Mark Phelan notes in the Detroit Free Press that Bush's brand-new Cadillac limousine makes its public debut Thursday.
Cheney Watch

Richard W. Stevenson and Elisabeth Bumiller write in the New York Times: "Vice President Dick Cheney is playing a potentially pivotal role in shaping the Bush administration's ambitious domestic agenda, supporting larger personal investment accounts for Social Security than many other Republicans and helping gauge how the White House should proceed on Capitol Hill, administration officials and associates of Mr. Cheney say. . . .

"Although Mr. Cheney is most identified in the public mind with foreign policy, he has also begun assertively rebutting administration critics on domestic issues, as he did in a speech last week on Social Security, while he works behind the scenes to hold together an increasingly fractious Republican Party.

"As on Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Mr. Cheney's views on domestic matters tend to favor bold action even at the risk of short-term political backlash -- what his critics would consider overreaching, reinforcing President Bush's own instincts."
Rice Testimony

National security adviser-for-now Condoleezza Rice takes center stage today.

Anne Gearan writes for the Associated Press: "Condoleezza Rice's televised job interview to be the next secretary of state presents a rare opportunity for senators to ask President Bush's most trusted foreign policy confidante to explain her views and her role combating terrorism and waging war in Iraq.

"Tuesday's daylong question and answer session before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is considered a formality -- both Republican and Democratic senators say she will easily win enough votes for Senate confirmation."
Bush Quiz

The Associated Press presents a George W. Bush quiz.

Among the questions:

? If you hooked up headphones to Bush's iPod, what music would you hear?

? What has Bush banned from the Oval Office?

? What does the president consider one of his hidden talents?

Answers:

? Bush's iPod contains the songs of Irish-born, folk-rock singer Van Morrison, whose hits include "Moondance" and "Domino," and country singer Linda Gail Lewis, little sister of rock legend Jerry Lee Lewis. Morrison and Lewis recently united their musical talents on the album, "You Win Again."

? The president has banned jeans in the Oval Office, but he often wears cowboy boots with his suits when meeting with foreign leaders.

? Bush considers his knowledge of baseball trivia a hidden talent.
Goodbye Altoid Boy

Ken Herman writes for the Cox News Service: "Longtime George W. Bush aide Israel Hernandez, who worked his way from trusted travel aide to the lofty title of deputy assistant to the president, is leaving the White House and ending an 11-year relationship with Bush.

"Hernandez, dubbed 'Altoid boy' by Bush when his duties included dispensing breath mints, worked on his resume early Friday morning in the West Wing office where his prime task is assistant to Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser."

- By Dan Froomkin

edit:
i find that bush refused to rule out military action against iran interesting.
particularly given that the hersh article was teh explicit prompt for asking about it.

JohnBua · 01-18-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

I hope we invade them.

...and I hope we fall in doing so.

This country disgusts me.

So you want people to die so you can say " i told you so". You disgust me.

Yakk · 01-18-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

does ANYONE think we have the spare military capacity to take on Iran right now?

The USA has the spare military capacity to take on Iran. It wouldn't be free/cheap like Iraq was, but the USA has enough.

Draft a few million people, change the economy from peacetime to war footing, and you could steamroll Iran. To make the draft politically feasible, first you attack with insufficient forces, and open a reluctant selective draft of ex-military. If the original 'too small' force wins, all the better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I don't believe Congress would have to approve such a move. The Administration could surely say this would just be part of the ongoing war on terror which has already been approved. Furthermore, they could argue it isn't a declaration of war at all, but a surgical strike.

Incite Iran into declairing war on the USA. Even if you have to push forces into Iran proper. The President can deploy US forces for a limited time without the consent of congress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

How do you all feel about a Nuclear Iran?

I'd expect a hostile nuclear Iran to be about as scary as a hostile nuclear North Korea, and less scary than a hostile nuclear USSR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKFU0

About the same as a nuclear U.S, a nuclear Israel, a nuclear N.Korea, a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear India, a nuclear Russia, etc,..etc,..etc,...

Actually, of all the above nations, only the USA currently has a significant political 'world domination' meme in the political sphere. Iran also has this meme (the Caliphate) bouncing around amount those in power.

Isreal, N.K., Pakistan, India and Russia are mainly regional players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

If we didn't have the hearts and mind of the average Iraqi, then why do the terrorist need to set up snipers at polling places? Why do they need to bomb mosques? If we lost the average person's heart and mind, why those tactics be needed at all by the terrorists?

The world has more than two factions. The Iraqi's don't like the USA and do not trust them. Many of them don't like and trust the rebel Iraqi forces fighting against the USA.

OFKU0 · 01-18-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Draft a few million people

You do realize that this would backfire on the Republicans and their Christian supporters since entities like the internet porn site 'The MILF Hunter' would take center stage and become a reality series on Fox, thus spawning many clones.

Then the administration would declare war not only on the porn industry, but on all types of sex, except for procreation purposes between married couples, that of course being a man and a woman.

Homeland security will be forced to establish an internal department to fend off the masses of sexually frustrated people. Condoms, dildos and KY jelly will be seen as the new WMD and will hunted down and destroyed. Those people (sexuoterrorists) involved will be brought to justice. They will be viewed as 'with us or against us.'

Sorry couldn't resist. Carry on.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2005, 01:52 PM

It's amazing how people would concede Nukes to Iran, even when it is blatantly illegal and insane for geopolitics. Grow a spine.

Stompy · 01-18-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

So you want people to die so you can say " i told you so". You disgust me.

Hmm.. now let's compare to what I posted!

Quote:

I hope we invade them.

...and I hope we fall in doing so.

This country disgusts me.

Now, do me a favor and point out where I said that! Oh wait, ya can't, because I didn't say or even allude to it.

This country needs to think of the consequences in taking such actions as going balls out and attacking yet another country when the FIRST invasion of a country didn't even go all that well. I'm not saying turn a blind eye to potential threats, but I hope we get smacked down one day for thinking we can just waltz through places where we aren't welcome.

If it's really a threat, present your evidence to the international body and get support. When you act alone, you look like a tyrant and deserve to get knocked the fuck out.

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It's amazing how people would concede Nukes to Iran, even when it is blatantly illegal and insane for geopolitics. Grow a spine.

Same way the US took on Pakistan and India?

Oh wait... it didn't.

Mr Mephisto

JohnBua · 01-18-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

Hmm.. now let's compare to what I posted!

Now, do me a favor and point out where I said that! Oh wait, ya can't, because I didn't say or even allude to it.

This country needs to think of the consequences in taking such actions as going balls out and attacking yet another country when the FIRST invasion of a country didn't even go all that well. I'm not saying turn a blind eye to potential threats, but I hope we get smacked down one day for thinking we can just waltz through places where we aren't welcome.

If it's really a threat, present your evidence to the international body and get support. When you act alone, you look like a tyrant and deserve to get knocked the fuck out.

So when you say you want America to fall, you are not in fact wishing the soldiers go into Iran, die all for nothing? If you mean something else, please explain what you mean. I think you re backtracking.

JohnBua · 01-18-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Same way the US took on Pakistan and India?

Oh wait... it didn't.

Mr Mephisto

Thank Clinton for that, and N Korea.

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 02:35 PM

Oh, right. It's Clinton's fault. I keep forgetting that. EVERYTHING'S Clinton's fault! LOL

So what's stopping Bush now? He's been in power for over 4 years. Or am I still going to hear that consistent clarion call of the conservatives "It was Clinton's fault" in 40 years time when I'm old and grey?

You know, something tells me I will...

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2005, 03:14 PM

Well let's see, North Korea signed a treaty saying they wouldn't pursue nukes... then they threatened to break said treaty unless the US doled out, which Clinton did, and wait oh yeah they now have them anyways. Yeah I'd say that is Clinton's fault.

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Well let's see, North Korea signed a treaty saying they wouldn't pursue nukes... then they threatened to break said treaty unless the US doled out, which Clinton did, and wait oh yeah they now have them anyways. Yeah I'd say that is Clinton's fault.

The question was actually about Pakistan and India. North Korea is irrelevant.

Mr Mephisto

trickyy · 01-18-2005, 03:46 PM

you guys might be interested to read the article itself, which is more about a shift away from the cia for covert ops
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

most recently, hersh broke the story on the abu ghraib prison abuses. since he has been around for decades, his sources are fairly reliable gov't insiders. he does speculate at times.

are you guys really surprised that we are in iran? most are probably more concerned about actions that the administration could take.
i don't think we are invading anyone for a while. first iraq (and perhaps even israel/palestine) needs to stabilize. and although iranians may dislike their mullahs, i doubt they would appreciate an american led "liberation." hopefully these raids give us some real intelligence though.

Zeld2.0 · 01-18-2005, 04:46 PM

The pursuit of nukes has been someting countries have sought since WW2 - Germany wanted it, the U.S. in response pushed with the Manhattan Project, the Soviet Union pushed for it.

Because put it this way - there are two types of powers, nuclear powers, and non-nuclear powers. The advantage is easily hands down the nuclear power. You cannot fight a conventional war while nuclear weapons hang over the field. Everyone knew what nukes could do such as the end of WW2, its not hidden knowledge.

India and Pakistan pursued these weapons because one side was hinted at doing so, the otehr had no choice but to play catch up. All these countries know that pursuing nuclear weapons is the only way to equalize the playing field once a rival has 'em be it India or Pakistan, Israel or Iran, N.Korea or China or whoever.

Nuclear weapons are their own enigma - you would think that nuclear weapons in the hands of the Soviet Union and Stalin would have been insane for geopolitics. Instead, it made both sides seek peace and actually probably kept the world from blowing itself up. Its the great paradox of nuclear weapons - they brought peace through the threat of destruction.

And nuclear weapons are only insane based upon what those countries do with it - and unless the leader is absolutely 100% nuts, most people who want power realize there is no reason to rule over a parking lot.

Rekna · 01-18-2005, 05:28 PM

We all know India and Pakistan have been huge problems since they got the nukes.....

We also know how good the US is at keeping conventions (Geneva convention anyone?) Any country has a right to leave a treaty at any time. That is their sovern right, it is not against the law to do so because they make the laws for their land. Now there may be consiquences for their actions but that is a different story.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

We all know India and Pakistan have been huge problems since they got the nukes.....

We also know how good the US is at keeping conventions (Geneva convention anyone?) Any country has a right to leave a treaty at any time. That is their sovern right, it is not against the law to do so because they make the laws for their land. Now there may be consiquences for their actions but that is a different story.

Well I guess Israel has the sovereign right to protect itself, in the context of this argument this is who it affects most. I wonder how long it takes hezbollah to detonate one of these bad boys in Tel Aviv after Iran starts pulling the bombs out of the oven?

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 05:41 PM

Actually, things can be deemed illegal even if the country is not a signatory. That's what the UN is for.

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2005, 06:09 PM

Not to assert any one issue, but we all know how effect the UN is at enforcing anything.

JohnBua · 01-18-2005, 06:23 PM

And I didn't know that UN rules were laws in independant nations. So if the UN passess a law, its law in the US? I don't think so.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2005, 06:34 PM

Well there is the problem Johnbua. Even me, a person who thinks the UN is a joke, knows that there has to be some international presence and governance. It should never trump sovereignity, but when it comes to issues like the Nuclear weapons, and you get certain countries run by total nutjobs, I think the international community has the right and the duty to step in and put them in place, especially when these nations try to come to the same table as us.

Rekna · 01-18-2005, 07:00 PM

So when the UN says we don't approve of you attacking this country does that mean by attacking that country you broke international law?

RangerDick · 01-18-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

So when the UN says we don't approve of you attacking this country does that mean by attacking that country you broke international law?

Rekna, check out UN Resolution 1441. Get back to us. We'll be waiting. Should I link it for you?

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 07:05 PM

Well said Mojo.

International Law is defined by a quorom of nations signing a treaty. I believe the number if around 184.

International law can also be enforced on nations that do not recognize it; albeit usually after their defeat in war. The perfect example is the trial of Japanese War Criminals after WWII. Japan never signed or recognized the Geneva Convention. Yet hundreds of their "citizens" were executed for crimes against humanity; crimes defined with reference to the Geneva Convention.

Just because you personally don't like the UN doesn't really mean much. Just because the US doesn't comply with all UN or international treaty obligations doesn't really mean much either. If it's deemed illegal by the international community, it's illegal.

Like it or not, the only "special" thing about the US is its power. The US is not above the law, despite how many of its citizens believe it should be.

The same goes for any state, including Ireland and Australia (before anyone makes reference to where I live or my citizenship).

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

So when the UN says we don't approve of you attacking this country does that mean by attacking that country you broke international law?

UN Resolutions does not constitute International Law.

UN Resolutions, passed by the General Assembly, are not binding.

Mr Mephisto

Rekna · 01-18-2005, 07:12 PM

I'm confused by your argument Mephisto you seem to be playing both sides. Does the UN set international law or not?

Stompy · 01-18-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

So when you say you want America to fall, you are not in fact wishing the soldiers go into Iran, die all for nothing? If you mean something else, please explain what you mean. I think you re backtracking.

You think I'm back tracking, I think you're over-analyzing.

You kinda took my statement of "I hope they fall" and ran with it, turning it into a "oh, so you wish the soldiers to die all for nothing?"

Not really. I feel sorry for the soldiers. They're puppets that have to do what they're told. I don't WANT anyone to die. I just want our leaders to be taught a lesson that we ARE NOT invincible and that we can NOT just go waltzing around sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.

The war in Iraq hasn't even gone that smoothly ... 2 years later. Do you REALLY think attacking Iran is smart? They aren't an Iraq type country... these people WILL fight back, and hard. They have mentioned numerous times that they will use WMDs if attacked, and rightfully so.

If we had a full backing from the international community, that's one thing, but we don't. There is something called world order, and you can't just go running around creating disarray because you have a hunch that a country will attack you or aid terrorists. In that case, you might as well kill everyone in that entire area.. hell, the entire world, because you never know who's gonna turn against you... it's silly.

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 07:22 PM

Sorry, I can see what you mean.

The short answer is yes and no.

UN Resolutions passed by the General Assembly are not binding.
UN Resolutions passed by the Security Assembly are deemed binding and can "authorize" the use of force; ie, the invasion or liberation of sovereign nations.

By becoming a member of the UN, you accept these conditions.

That's also why the six permanent members of the Security Council have so much power. They can veto any Security Council resolution. This is a shadow of post-WWII geo-politics. There is a movement in the UN to offer other major countries (such as Germany, India, China) permanent seats also. Not sure how far this will get, as it will devalue the current veto power the US and others enjoy.

Other things that also set International Law are signing an treaty or convention. Things such as the Geneva Convention, or the International Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. These are "law", but a country can withdraw from them; as the US has done with the INTBT.

Finally, there are agreements, protocols, conventions and treaties that can become international law once enough countries sign up. The Kyoto Protocol is a good example. Now that Russia has signed up and ratified the treaty, it has become law. The US ans Australia have not signed, but that is irrelevant as they can now be penalized by the so-called Kyoto Club until they change their behaviour or sign up. Whether that happens or not is debatable.

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2005, 07:25 PM

For the record, Mr Mephisto, I think you are a little off on your facts. There are 5 permanant chairs in the SC being US, Britain, France, Russia, China.

RangerDick · 01-18-2005, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

You think I'm back tracking, I think you're over-analyzing.

You kinda took my statement of "I hope they fall" and ran with it, turning it into a "oh, so you wish the soldiers to die all for nothing?"

Not really. I feel sorry for the soldiers. They're puppets that have to do what they're told. I don't WANT anyone to die. I just want our leaders to be taught a lesson that we ARE NOT invincible and that we can NOT just go waltzing around sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.

The war in Iraq hasn't even gone that smoothly ... 2 years later. Do you REALLY think attacking Iran is smart? They aren't an Iraq type country... these people WILL fight back, and hard. They have mentioned numerous times that they will use WMDs if attacked, and rightfully so.

If we had a full backing from the international community, that's one thing, but we don't. There is something called world order, and you can't just go running around creating disarray because you have a hunch that a country will attack you or aid terrorists. In that case, you might as well kill everyone in that entire area.. hell, the entire world, because you never know who's gonna turn against you... it's silly.

You can twist and turn what you said. What you wrote is what you wrote. I think you are a punk. I may be taking the chance of getting banned, but I'm gonna take that chance. If the Mods let a statement like the one you posted stand, they should have no problem with letting someone calling you out on it stand.

3.....2......1.......

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

For the record, Mr Mephisto, I think you are a little off on your facts. There are 5 permanant chairs in the SC being US, Britain, France, Russia, China.

Sorry, my bad. I was just reading how Germany wanted to be the sixth.

Mental typo.

Mr Mephisto

Stompy · 01-18-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

You can twist and turn what you said. What you wrote is what you wrote. I think you are a punk. I may be taking the chance of getting banned, but I'm gonna take that chance. If the Mods let a statement like the one you posted stand, they should have no problem with letting someone calling you out on it stand.

3.....2......1.......

You people are too much.

Rdr4evr · 01-18-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

You can twist and turn what you said. What you wrote is what you wrote. I think you are a punk. I may be taking the chance of getting banned, but I'm gonna take that chance. If the Mods let a statement like the one you posted stand, they should have no problem with letting someone calling you out on it stand.

3.....2......1.......

Difference is that he didn't insult anyone personally...whereas you just did. Nobody should get banned for their opinions just because it differs from yours.

martinguerre · 01-18-2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

The USA has the spare military capacity to take on Iran. It wouldn't be free/cheap like Iraq was, but the USA has enough.

Draft a few million people, change the economy from peacetime to war footing, and you could steamroll Iran. To make the draft politically feasible, first you attack with insufficient forces, and open a reluctant selective draft of ex-military. If the original 'too small' force wins, all the better.

I think you seriously underestimate the problem of draft resistance. if uncle sam came knocking for another war...i think it would be a real issue to get folks to go. i just don't think we have the political resolve to do any of that. if there was another devastating attack...yeah. but absent that, we're looking at the current volenteer force. with that? i don't think we can effect much of anything past air strikes in Iran. at least not with out substantially changing other deployments such as S. Korea.

Free? Cheap? Like Iraq was? Is there any reasonable explanations for these comments?

trickyy · 01-18-2005, 08:12 PM

article came up in rice's confirmation hearings
i guess this is an update on the official position
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/po...?pagewanted=37

Quote:

SEN. KERRY: And with respect to Iran, are you also denying or discounting any of the allegations in this article?

MS. RICE: The article has -- it is inaccurate.

SEN. KERRY: With respect to Iran?

MS. RICE: The article is, as Defense said, inaccurate.

SEN. KERRY: With respect to Iran?

MS. RICE: Senator, the article does not represent our policies toward Iran or our expectations of policy toward Iran.

Rekna · 01-18-2005, 08:15 PM

Sounds like they are not denying that the US is operating inside Iran which to me is the same as admiting they are.

powerclown · 01-18-2005, 09:49 PM

How could the US even fathom considering flushing a toilet in Iran, let alone invade it? With the controversy they created in Iraq? No WAY could the US have plans to invade Iran.

Are they spying on Iran? Probably.
Are they trying to spook Iran? Probably.

If the US attacked Iran, I think WW4 would break out. With Chiraq carrying up the rear guard.

Rdr4evr · 01-18-2005, 10:32 PM

Trying to spook Iran isn't going to work. Not only are they not in fear, but they will prove it with nuclear weapons if need be. I wouldn't blame them if they do either.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2005, 10:35 PM

Cut your nose to spite your face?

01-18-2005, 10:26 AM	#41 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I hope we invade them. ...and I hope we fall in doing so. This country disgusts me. __________________ I love lamp.

01-18-2005, 10:31 AM	#42 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Well, for one thing, we've already got a special forces group that is operating in Afghanistan/Pakistan, it wouldn't be that hard to move over to Iran for a little bit. For another, special forces inside of a nation does not automatically mean we are going to war with a nation. There were several operations inside of Libya for the sole purpose of gathering information, and as far as I know, major military operations haven't been conducted inside Libya's border's. We're jumping to conclusions here based on one writer's sources that may or may not be credible. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

01-18-2005, 01:52 PM	#47 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It's amazing how people would concede Nukes to Iran, even when it is blatantly illegal and insane for geopolitics. Grow a spine. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2005, 02:35 PM	#52 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Oh, right. It's Clinton's fault. I keep forgetting that. EVERYTHING'S Clinton's fault! LOL So what's stopping Bush now? He's been in power for over 4 years. Or am I still going to hear that consistent clarion call of the conservatives "It was Clinton's fault" in 40 years time when I'm old and grey? You know, something tells me I will... Mr Mephisto Last edited by Mephisto2; 01-18-2005 at 03:22 PM.. Reason: spelling

01-18-2005, 03:14 PM	#53 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well let's see, North Korea signed a treaty saying they wouldn't pursue nukes... then they threatened to break said treaty unless the US doled out, which Clinton did, and wait oh yeah they now have them anyways. Yeah I'd say that is Clinton's fault. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2005, 03:46 PM	#55 (permalink)
trickyy ►	you guys might be interested to read the article itself, which is more about a shift away from the cia for covert ops http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact most recently, hersh broke the story on the abu ghraib prison abuses. since he has been around for decades, his sources are fairly reliable gov't insiders. he does speculate at times. are you guys really surprised that we are in iran? most are probably more concerned about actions that the administration could take. i don't think we are invading anyone for a while. first iraq (and perhaps even israel/palestine) needs to stabilize. and although iranians may dislike their mullahs, i doubt they would appreciate an american led "liberation." hopefully these raids give us some real intelligence though.

01-18-2005, 04:46 PM	#56 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	The pursuit of nukes has been someting countries have sought since WW2 - Germany wanted it, the U.S. in response pushed with the Manhattan Project, the Soviet Union pushed for it. Because put it this way - there are two types of powers, nuclear powers, and non-nuclear powers. The advantage is easily hands down the nuclear power. You cannot fight a conventional war while nuclear weapons hang over the field. Everyone knew what nukes could do such as the end of WW2, its not hidden knowledge. India and Pakistan pursued these weapons because one side was hinted at doing so, the otehr had no choice but to play catch up. All these countries know that pursuing nuclear weapons is the only way to equalize the playing field once a rival has 'em be it India or Pakistan, Israel or Iran, N.Korea or China or whoever. Nuclear weapons are their own enigma - you would think that nuclear weapons in the hands of the Soviet Union and Stalin would have been insane for geopolitics. Instead, it made both sides seek peace and actually probably kept the world from blowing itself up. Its the great paradox of nuclear weapons - they brought peace through the threat of destruction. And nuclear weapons are only insane based upon what those countries do with it - and unless the leader is absolutely 100% nuts, most people who want power realize there is no reason to rule over a parking lot.

01-18-2005, 05:28 PM	#57 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	We all know India and Pakistan have been huge problems since they got the nukes..... We also know how good the US is at keeping conventions (Geneva convention anyone?) Any country has a right to leave a treaty at any time. That is their sovern right, it is not against the law to do so because they make the laws for their land. Now there may be consiquences for their actions but that is a different story.

01-18-2005, 05:41 PM	#59 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Actually, things can be deemed illegal even if the country is not a signatory. That's what the UN is for. Mr Mephisto

01-18-2005, 06:09 PM	#60 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Not to assert any one issue, but we all know how effect the UN is at enforcing anything. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2005, 06:23 PM	#61 (permalink)
JohnBua Banned	And I didn't know that UN rules were laws in independant nations. So if the UN passess a law, its law in the US? I don't think so.

01-18-2005, 06:34 PM	#62 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well there is the problem Johnbua. Even me, a person who thinks the UN is a joke, knows that there has to be some international presence and governance. It should never trump sovereignity, but when it comes to issues like the Nuclear weapons, and you get certain countries run by total nutjobs, I think the international community has the right and the duty to step in and put them in place, especially when these nations try to come to the same table as us. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2005, 07:00 PM	#63 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	So when the UN says we don't approve of you attacking this country does that mean by attacking that country you broke international law?

01-18-2005, 07:05 PM	#65 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Well said Mojo. International Law is defined by a quorom of nations signing a treaty. I believe the number if around 184. International law can also be enforced on nations that do not recognize it; albeit usually after their defeat in war. The perfect example is the trial of Japanese War Criminals after WWII. Japan never signed or recognized the Geneva Convention. Yet hundreds of their "citizens" were executed for crimes against humanity; crimes defined with reference to the Geneva Convention. Just because you personally don't like the UN doesn't really mean much. Just because the US doesn't comply with all UN or international treaty obligations doesn't really mean much either. If it's deemed illegal by the international community, it's illegal. Like it or not, the only "special" thing about the US is its power. The US is not above the law, despite how many of its citizens believe it should be. The same goes for any state, including Ireland and Australia (before anyone makes reference to where I live or my citizenship). Mr Mephisto

01-18-2005, 07:12 PM	#67 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'm confused by your argument Mephisto you seem to be playing both sides. Does the UN set international law or not?

01-18-2005, 07:22 PM	#69 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Sorry, I can see what you mean. The short answer is yes and no. UN Resolutions passed by the General Assembly are not binding. UN Resolutions passed by the Security Assembly are deemed binding and can "authorize" the use of force; ie, the invasion or liberation of sovereign nations. By becoming a member of the UN, you accept these conditions. That's also why the six permanent members of the Security Council have so much power. They can veto any Security Council resolution. This is a shadow of post-WWII geo-politics. There is a movement in the UN to offer other major countries (such as Germany, India, China) permanent seats also. Not sure how far this will get, as it will devalue the current veto power the US and others enjoy. Other things that also set International Law are signing an treaty or convention. Things such as the Geneva Convention, or the International Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. These are "law", but a country can withdraw from them; as the US has done with the INTBT. Finally, there are agreements, protocols, conventions and treaties that can become international law once enough countries sign up. The Kyoto Protocol is a good example. Now that Russia has signed up and ratified the treaty, it has become law. The US ans Australia have not signed, but that is irrelevant as they can now be penalized by the so-called Kyoto Club until they change their behaviour or sign up. Whether that happens or not is debatable. Mr Mephisto

01-18-2005, 07:25 PM	#70 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	For the record, Mr Mephisto, I think you are a little off on your facts. There are 5 permanant chairs in the SC being US, Britain, France, Russia, China. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2005, 08:15 PM	#77 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Sounds like they are not denying that the US is operating inside Iran which to me is the same as admiting they are.

01-18-2005, 09:49 PM	#78 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	How could the US even fathom considering flushing a toilet in Iran, let alone invade it? With the controversy they created in Iraq? No WAY could the US have plans to invade Iran. Are they spying on Iran? Probably. Are they trying to spook Iran? Probably. If the US attacked Iran, I think WW4 would break out. With Chiraq carrying up the rear guard.

01-18-2005, 10:32 PM	#79 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	Trying to spook Iran isn't going to work. Not only are they not in fear, but they will prove it with nuclear weapons if need be. I wouldn't blame them if they do either.

01-18-2005, 10:35 PM	#80 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Cut your nose to spite your face? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.