Mid East issue
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
- Legend
- General
- Posts: 2531
- Joined: Sep 08 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: Ancaster, Ontario - BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
-
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 583
- Joined: May 09 2003
- Location: California
I always wondered why the second war with Iraq had to happen right then. If we couldn't have done it in '98, when the world was backing us and we had the right to do it. It wasn't because Clinton wouldn't have either. The unit I was with in Feb. '98 was given its deployment orders and we had 96 hours to pack everything, get all our paperwork and affairs in order and we were shipping out to Kuwait. At the at the 72 hour mark the advanced party left, at about the 80 hour mark the deployment was cancelled because Congress (a Republican controled Congress) refused to fund a major troop deployment for more then 30 days. The advanced party stayed in the Persian Gulf for 6 months incase things changed. So what changed between '98 and '03? Nothing!!!
Hell, the only reason we were able to do anything against Serbia in '99 was because it was a NATO operation.
It's a sad thing when the desire to impeach a president for getting a BJ takes presidence over issues of national security. And yes, that's what happened. So the Republicans right now have no right to complain about partisan politics.
Hell, the only reason we were able to do anything against Serbia in '99 was because it was a NATO operation.
It's a sad thing when the desire to impeach a president for getting a BJ takes presidence over issues of national security. And yes, that's what happened. So the Republicans right now have no right to complain about partisan politics.
- bergsjaeger
- General
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Apr 22 2005
- Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA
I guess those ?'s were for me. I'm not sure what will happen if there's a war. I can't see into the future but I'm guessing it will be like Iraq 10x much worse if not more. It might end up causing alot of problems. Big headed egoes be the real cause of war. But I admit I can't find a solution to the problem. Wish I could it would end the issue. Who will strike. Now that's hard to say. It could be a full scale war by the US but with troops scattered everywhere it be hard to do. Plus the US has to think about the troops it has in Iraq My guess be Israel with backing from the US secretly. Course There's always the option of special ops. As for my thought. I admit a war with Iran right now might be both a good and bad idea. No one knows for sure y Iran is enriching uranium. It could be for power plants then again it might be used for bombs. Bombs that some individuals should never be allowed to have. As I said in another post in 10 years this world might be in a mess. But again there's always hope.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.
-
- General
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Jul 14 2004
- Human: Yes
- Location: Space Coast, FL
(Foundation / Isaac Asimov for those no sci fi fans)Violence is the last resource of the incompetent
Salvor Hardin
Mayor of Terminus
Oh Gosh! I always wanted to qoute that....
Unfortunately... War is sometimes the only option left...
I concur with Berg, I don't think that the US will lauch a full scale attack on Iran any time soon... But I don't think that Israel will attack Iran either... They don't share land borders, and the israelies (sp?) have their hands busy with Hamas which is an inmidiate threat for them... Cruise missile or aerial attacks agains iranian "WMD production facilities" might be possible tho if the situation degenerates....
-
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 583
- Joined: May 09 2003
- Location: California
I'm not sure the new Iranian President (however you spell his name) has popular support, but if you bomb Iran it will rally the people behind him. Iran is quite capable of launching an offensive into Iraq or Afganistan. I'm not sure how many will support us if we strike first. I won't count on the Turks or Europe to back us up and certainly not Russia. If Israel does anything, particularly to support a US strike against Iran that could destablize Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and any other "friendly" country in that region.
Thanks to the mismanagement of the US Military by the Cheney/Rumsfeld team any kind of ground combat is out of the question. There short sighted cutbacks after the Cold War (which the Clinton Adminstration got unfairly critisized for, but should be critisized for following the general plan they set down in 1992) and general blundering and financial waste have left the US Military undermanned, under-equipped, over worked, over stretched and completely depended on high user cost weapons. That's what happens when you decrease unit firepower and protection to decrease "logistics tail" (Stryker Brigade, heavy use of "Uparmored HMMWVs, obsession with "light" foot bound Infantry).
Thanks to the mismanagement of the US Military by the Cheney/Rumsfeld team any kind of ground combat is out of the question. There short sighted cutbacks after the Cold War (which the Clinton Adminstration got unfairly critisized for, but should be critisized for following the general plan they set down in 1992) and general blundering and financial waste have left the US Military undermanned, under-equipped, over worked, over stretched and completely depended on high user cost weapons. That's what happens when you decrease unit firepower and protection to decrease "logistics tail" (Stryker Brigade, heavy use of "Uparmored HMMWVs, obsession with "light" foot bound Infantry).
-
- Corporal
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Apr 04 2006
- Location: Canada
Under the articles of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), signed by both Iran and the US, though not by Israel, all signatory states have the unalienable right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.bergsjaeger wrote: I guess those ?'s were for me. I'm not sure what will happen if there's a war. I can't see into the future but I'm guessing it will be like Iraq 10x much worse if not more. It might end up causing alot of problems. Big headed egoes be the real cause of war. But I admit I can't find a solution to the problem. Wish I could it would end the issue. Who will strike. Now that's hard to say. It could be a full scale war by the US but with troops scattered everywhere it be hard to do. Plus the US has to think about the troops it has in Iraq My guess be Israel with backing from the US secretly. Course There's always the option of special ops. As for my thought. I admit a war with Iran right now might be both a good and bad idea. No one knows for sure y Iran is enriching uranium. It could be for power plants then again it might be used for bombs. Bombs that some individuals should never be allowed to have. As I said in another post in 10 years this world might be in a mess. But again there's always hope.
"Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world. " (full text at http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html ).
As long as Iran complies with inspections by the IAEA, the burden of proof rests on the US, not Iran, to prove that the enrichment of uranium is directed towards weapons. The US asking for Iran to 'prove' it does not aim at producing nuclear weapons is an impossible demand, and only serves to antagonize relations between the two countries.
Go back three years, before the start of the invasion of Iraq, and you'll see almost exactly the same scenario playing out.
- bergsjaeger
- General
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Apr 22 2005
- Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA
Yes there seems to be a search for a reason for war. As the case with Iraq. Course Iraq might have had weapons they shouldn't have but there wasn't any exact proof. But keep in mind Saddam had enough time to either hide them or ship them to another friendly country. Does that mean he had them. Well he could have but with no proof no one will never know unless the weapons or some kind of proof is found. As for Iran as I said no one really knows y they want to enrich uranium. Its a guessing game. As for signing agreements. Now days they mean nothing. A country can sign one just to get everyone off their back and still do the opposite of what the agreement says. The US has too many things to deal with to start another war. The only way the US could is start the draft back up. Which I bet I be one of them that gets to go. Course it wouldn't be that way if goverment planned for the future a little better. The thing that gets to me is Russia always backing the opposite of the US. Seems a grudge of the cold war is still around. U think Russia could help solve this issue fast. The only thing they tried to help with is the offer of enriching uranium in their country. Oh well I just hope I'm wrong this time about a war happening.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.
-
- Captain
- Posts: 110
- Joined: May 08 2005
- Location: St. Louis, MO (nationality--Turkey)
-
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 583
- Joined: May 09 2003
- Location: California
-
- Corporal
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Apr 04 2006
- Location: Canada
There was proof that he had had them in the past, if only because they were supplied by the US themselves. But there was no proof that he still did. As you said, the only thing one could prove would be that he did in fact have them. The reverse is unprovable. Presumption of innocence or guilt, it's your call.bergsjaeger wrote:Yes there seems to be a search for a reason for war. As the case with Iraq. Course Iraq might have had weapons they shouldn't have but there wasn't any exact proof. But keep in mind Saddam had enough time to either hide them or ship them to another friendly country. Does that mean he had them. Well he could have but with no proof no one will never know unless the weapons or some kind of proof is found. As for Iran as I said no one really knows y they want to enrich uranium. Its a guessing game. As for signing agreements. Now days they mean nothing. A country can sign one just to get everyone off their back and still do the opposite of what the agreement says. The US has too many things to deal with to start another war. The only way the US could is start the draft back up. Which I bet I be one of them that gets to go. Course it wouldn't be that way if goverment planned for the future a little better. The thing that gets to me is Russia always backing the opposite of the US. Seems a grudge of the cold war is still around. U think Russia could help solve this issue fast. The only thing they tried to help with is the offer of enriching uranium in their country. Oh well I just hope I'm wrong this time about a war happening.
As for agreements, the US record on NAFTA is rather bad.
The reason why Russia stands opposite the US on most issues is because of oil interests in the region, just as China does. Whoever has the best relations in the region has the best access to oil, and is thus able to feed a growing economy.
- bergsjaeger
- General
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Apr 22 2005
- Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA
Oil. Seems thats the main bargain chip for everything now days. Makes sense for Russia and China to be Iran's bed buddy. Its sad really both countries could be in the spotlight solving the problem. They could do it but they either are afraid to or will gain a hella lot of oil opposing the US. As I said I hate politics as well as politicans. Every one of them will save face just to gain something either publicly or secretly. Maybe it will all be solved peacefully but something tells me it won't. Not sure what will take place. Whatever happens will happen which could have been differnet if egos weren't involved.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.
- Leafgreen
- Colonel
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Apr 06 2006
- Location: Emerald City
- Contact:
Remember that we didn't finish Iraq during desert storm because the saudis requested that we not enter iraq. (They do have a MUCH better idea of the politics of the region than we do - the devil you know...)
Iran and Iraq were tossing chemical weapons at each other for quite some time prior to desert storm - I actually find it strange that no WoMD were found.
There was a no-fly zone along iraq's border ever since desert storm, with them trying pretty hard to kill pilots. I remember a shortage of pilots because of that. We never did have a peace with Iraq - just a cease fire.
Oh, and iran did set off a nuclear bomb (atom or hydrogen I don't remember) in 1999 for 'testing purposes'.
Pretty odd how Iran doesn't care about the UN demand (not that the un has any teeth) that will lead to economic sanctions. They are a massive importer of refined fuel so you'd think that would at least make them think for a bit. I just hope they aren't on a one-track course to nuke Israel at any cost while politically stalling road.
Then again, they are sending in insurgents and funding unrest in Iraq, threatening US/UK with 40k suicide bombers, and will be a big wolf next to a newborn Iraq sheep... I don't remember who said all lawyers should be shot, but I think all politcians should be shot first - the Iranian, Iraqi and American people don't want war or to provoke anything, just to live their lives and improve their quality of living.
Oh yeah, can't forget this one.
The pentagon pushed through in 2005 a bill allowing us to use nukes for pre-emptive purposes.
Iran and Iraq were tossing chemical weapons at each other for quite some time prior to desert storm - I actually find it strange that no WoMD were found.
There was a no-fly zone along iraq's border ever since desert storm, with them trying pretty hard to kill pilots. I remember a shortage of pilots because of that. We never did have a peace with Iraq - just a cease fire.
Oh, and iran did set off a nuclear bomb (atom or hydrogen I don't remember) in 1999 for 'testing purposes'.
Pretty odd how Iran doesn't care about the UN demand (not that the un has any teeth) that will lead to economic sanctions. They are a massive importer of refined fuel so you'd think that would at least make them think for a bit. I just hope they aren't on a one-track course to nuke Israel at any cost while politically stalling road.
Then again, they are sending in insurgents and funding unrest in Iraq, threatening US/UK with 40k suicide bombers, and will be a big wolf next to a newborn Iraq sheep... I don't remember who said all lawyers should be shot, but I think all politcians should be shot first - the Iranian, Iraqi and American people don't want war or to provoke anything, just to live their lives and improve their quality of living.
Oh yeah, can't forget this one.
The pentagon pushed through in 2005 a bill allowing us to use nukes for pre-emptive purposes.
"That's O'neill, with two l's"
(Holds up 3 fingers)
(Holds up 3 fingers)
- Uriens
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Oct 05 2005
Hmm, you are helping my paranoia here. Actually I think that they are counting on a fact that you need raw oil first before you can refine it. They have it and they (probably) count that UN won't be able to hold such sanctions for long without seriously effecting worlds oil market and prices. There already is serious fluctuations in oil prices and sanctions would probably worsen it.Leafgreen wrote:Pretty odd how Iran doesn't care about the UN demand (not that the un has any teeth) that will lead to economic sanctions. They are a massive importer of refined fuel so you'd think that would at least make them think for a bit. I just hope they aren't on a one-track course to nuke Israel at any cost while politically stalling road.
I could be wrong though.
- Leafgreen
- Colonel
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Apr 06 2006
- Location: Emerald City
- Contact:
- bergsjaeger
- General
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Apr 22 2005
- Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA
The only teeth the UN has is supplied by the US. That the only reason the UN succeed where the League of Nations failed is because the US is involved in it. Think about it when there's UN action on another country who supplies the most troops, money, and supplies. The US does. Korea, the Balkans, Somalia and the list goes on. The UN is nothing like it was when it was just created. In the 50's the UN was something to fear. Now days ever country can listen to the UN but ignores what the UN demands. I believe the US should pull out of the UN. The US can do more by theirselves. Actually the US has to do more by theirselves. With the Irani issue it will end up with the US taking some kind of action theirselves or help others take action because the UN can't even make a country do what it demands. Iran was told to stop enriching unranium by yesterday but i bet they are still enriching. And sanctions will never stop Iran. If they are enriching for weapon purposes they will keep doing it. And they will get uranium one way or another. Mainly because of their buddy to the north. But anyways just ranting.
thought i put an article from the new york times on here
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world ... ref=slogin
thought i put an article from the new york times on here
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world ... ref=slogin
In war destroy everything even the livestock.