Bush Budget Plans for Iran Attack

[Jasman0717 9]

I'd be curious on what legal terms could the U.S. strategical strike at Iran without violating international treaty laws? What stops us from strategically knocking out N. Korean nuclear facilities?

Damn MWDs

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd be curious on what legal terms could the U.S. strategical strike at Iran without violating international treaty laws? What stops us from strategically knocking out N. Korean nuclear facilities?

Huh? Treaties are not laws. We have no non-agression treaty with Iran. We are still at war with North Korea.

We can bomb whoever we want, such is the nature of war. It is the political outcomes that stop us. There is no international "law" that countries are ultimately accountable to. Sure, the UN could pass some resolution, but those are worthless things unless other countries are willing to back them up with force or sanctions. (which they aren't in this case).

This is an art in foreign policy called "brinksmanship" or "sabre-rattling." Kind of like a game of chicken. When the other side is convinced you will act, and are prepared for thre reprocussions, they are more likely to negotiate.

North Korea? The real threat is pissing off China, and the Japanese and South Koreans don't want us to.

If our logic for pre-emptive strikes against Iran is because they could impose a future threat to us or our allies, then any country can apply that logic, which of course, as you've indicated must consider the consequences. That pretty much amounts to might makes right...or at least if you have nuclear weapons (or an ally who does), another country will think twice about attacking you.

We need international laws/treaties to prevent that kind of conflict quagmire. This idea of the U.S. as the big sheriff of the rest of the world is going to lead us nowhere fast.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

I'd be curious on what legal terms could the U.S. strategical strike at Iran without violating international treaty laws? What stops us from strategically knocking out N. Korean nuclear facilities?

Damn MWDs

mwds? mcwhatdonalds?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Global Action to Prevent War aims to make deadly conflict rare by strengthening commitment to the rule of law in international and domestic affairs, enhancing international institutions for conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and peace enforcement, and, ultimately, replacing national capabilities for unilateral military intervention abroad with multilateral defense against genocide and aggression.

http://bostonreview.net/BR24.1/forsberg.html

[mawilson 2,133]

If our logic for pre-emptive strikes against Iran is because they could impose a future threat to us or our allies, then any country can apply that logic

Any country can apply that logic, but our military budget exceeds the total military expenditures

of the rest of the world (more or less), so even if everyone decided to attack us, we'd still kick

their ###.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If our logic for pre-emptive strikes against Iran is because they could impose a future threat to us or our allies, then any country can apply that logic

Any country can apply that logic, but our military budget exceeds the total military expenditures

of the rest of the world (more or less), so even if everyone decided to attack us, we'd still kick

their ###.

That's what I feared...not much progress since the Dark Ages.

[GaryC 7]

If our logic for preemptive strikes against Iran is because they could impose a future threat to us or our allies, then any country can apply that logic

Any country can apply that logic, but our military budget exceeds the total military expenditures

of the rest of the world (more or less), so even if everyone decided to attack us, we'd still kick

their ###.

That's what I feared...not much progress since the Dark Ages.

Whether you like it or not that is the way of the world and humans. Even if we wanted to change, (the USA) unless the rest of the world follows suit we would just be setting ourselves up for destruction. You can't deny basic human characteristics. Might will always make right.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If our logic for preemptive strikes against Iran is because they could impose a future threat to us or our allies, then any country can apply that logic

Any country can apply that logic, but our military budget exceeds the total military expenditures

of the rest of the world (more or less), so even if everyone decided to attack us, we'd still kick

their ###.

That's what I feared...not much progress since the Dark Ages.

Whether you like it or not that is the way of the world and humans. Even if we wanted to change, (the USA) unless the rest of the world follows suit we would just be setting ourselves up for destruction. You can't deny basic human characteristics. Might will always make right.

I would have thought we'd have realised by now that modern conflicts don't "make right" as much as create a clusterf*ck years down the line, and barter away our long term security for short term gain.

All that we'll really achieve by this is a postponement of the inevitable, and stack another few logs onto what promises to be a very large bonfire.

[GaryC 7]

If our logic for preemptive strikes against Iran is because they could impose a future threat to us or our allies, then any country can apply that logic

Any country can apply that logic, but our military budget exceeds the total military expenditures

of the rest of the world (more or less), so even if everyone decided to attack us, we'd still kick

their ###.

That's what I feared...not much progress since the Dark Ages.

Whether you like it or not that is the way of the world and humans. Even if we wanted to change, (the USA) unless the rest of the world follows suit we would just be setting ourselves up for destruction. You can't deny basic human characteristics. Might will always make right.

I would have thought we'd have realised by now that modern conflicts don't "make right" as much as create a clusterf*ck years down the line, and barter away our long term security for short term gain.

All that we'll really achieve by this is a postponement of the inevitable, and stack another few logs onto what promises to be a very large bonfire.

At the same time doing nothing (diplomacy is nothing) and allowing Iran to become a nuclear power will make an even biger bonfire. I marvel at those that condemn what we do without suggesting any viable alternatives.

[Caladan 19]

Regardless of whether you think Iran getting a nuclear program in ten years is casus belli, this administration should not be trusted with anything sharper than a piece of processed cheese. They've proved they can't handle it, plus, on your way out of office is no time to start a war.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If our logic for preemptive strikes against Iran is because they could impose a future threat to us or our allies, then any country can apply that logic

Any country can apply that logic, but our military budget exceeds the total military expenditures

of the rest of the world (more or less), so even if everyone decided to attack us, we'd still kick

their ###.

That's what I feared...not much progress since the Dark Ages.

Whether you like it or not that is the way of the world and humans. Even if we wanted to change, (the USA) unless the rest of the world follows suit we would just be setting ourselves up for destruction. You can't deny basic human characteristics. Might will always make right.

I would have thought we'd have realised by now that modern conflicts don't "make right" as much as create a clusterf*ck years down the line, and barter away our long term security for short term gain.

All that we'll really achieve by this is a postponement of the inevitable, and stack another few logs onto what promises to be a very large bonfire.

At the same time doing nothing (diplomacy is nothing) and allowing Iran to become a nuclear power will make an even biger bonfire. I marvel at those that condemn what we do without suggesting any viable alternatives.

Is it viable to retard a country's development and the development of a modern infrastructure simply because we disagree with the guys running the show?

[GaryC 7]

If our logic for preemptive strikes against Iran is because they could impose a future threat to us or our allies, then any country can apply that logic

Any country can apply that logic, but our military budget exceeds the total military expenditures

of the rest of the world (more or less), so even if everyone decided to attack us, we'd still kick

their ###.

That's what I feared...not much progress since the Dark Ages.

Whether you like it or not that is the way of the world and humans. Even if we wanted to change, (the USA) unless the rest of the world follows suit we would just be setting ourselves up for destruction. You can't deny basic human characteristics. Might will always make right.

I would have thought we'd have realised by now that modern conflicts don't "make right" as much as create a clusterf*ck years down the line, and barter away our long term security for short term gain.

All that we'll really achieve by this is a postponement of the inevitable, and stack another few logs onto what promises to be a very large bonfire.

At the same time doing nothing (diplomacy is nothing) and allowing Iran to become a nuclear power will make an even bigger bonfire. I marvel at those that condemn what we do without suggesting any viable alternatives.

Is it viable to retard a country's development and the development of a modern infrastructure simply because we disagree with the guys running the show?

Yes, if they are a threat like Iran is. It gives them the incentive to stop being a threat.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If our logic for preemptive strikes against Iran is because they could impose a future threat to us or our allies, then any country can apply that logic

Any country can apply that logic, but our military budget exceeds the total military expenditures

of the rest of the world (more or less), so even if everyone decided to attack us, we'd still kick

their ###.

That's what I feared...not much progress since the Dark Ages.

Whether you like it or not that is the way of the world and humans. Even if we wanted to change, (the USA) unless the rest of the world follows suit we would just be setting ourselves up for destruction. You can't deny basic human characteristics. Might will always make right.

I would have thought we'd have realised by now that modern conflicts don't "make right" as much as create a clusterf*ck years down the line, and barter away our long term security for short term gain.

All that we'll really achieve by this is a postponement of the inevitable, and stack another few logs onto what promises to be a very large bonfire.

At the same time doing nothing (diplomacy is nothing) and allowing Iran to become a nuclear power will make an even bigger bonfire. I marvel at those that condemn what we do without suggesting any viable alternatives.

Is it viable to retard a country's development and the development of a modern infrastructure simply because we disagree with the guys running the show?

Yes, if they are a threat like Iran is. It gives them the incentive to stop being a threat.

I doubt that it would give the government much of an incentive to do anything in that regard. However as far as general public opinion goes - attacking someone's country has a tendency radicalise the population.

[GaryC 7]

Fishdude, which is the bigger bonfire, bombing Irans nuclear facilities or this? You gotta remember who your dealing with here.

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons with help from Russia and North Korea, Pakistan, also a Muslim state, has already a certain number of nuclear bomb.

In a lengthy speech to mark the so-called "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" celebrated in Iran only, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, said since Israel was an emanation of Western colonialism therefore "in future it will be the interests of colonialism that will determine existence or non-existence of Israel".

Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani made the unprecedented threat as, following new suicide operations inside Israel and against Israeli settlements by Palestinian extremists in PA-controlled zones, responded by Israel’s heaviest bombarding of Palestinian cities, police, communication and radio-television installations, killing and wounding more than 200 people on both sides, resulted in the halting of all contacts between Israel and the PA of Mr. Yaser Arafat.

He said since Israel is the product of Western colonialism, "the continued existence of Israel depends on interests of arrogance and colonialism and as long as the base is helpful for colonialism, it is going to keep it.

Hashemi-Rafsanjani advised Western states not to pin their hopes on Israel's violence because it will be "very dangerous".

"We are not willing to see security in the world is harmed", he said, warning against the "eruption of the Third World War.

"War of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of the World War III", the former Iranian president said, backing firmly suicide operations against Israel.

Quoted by the official news agency IRNA, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani said weakening of Palestinian Jihad is "unlikely", as the Palestinians have come to the conclusion that talks would be effective only "in light of struggle and self-sacrifice- the two key elements that gave way to beginning of the second Intifada".

Iranian analysts and commentators outside Iran immediately reacted to Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s statement, expressing fear that it might trigger an international backlash against Iran itself, giving Israel, the United States and other Western and even Arab nations to further isolate Iran as a source of threat to regional security.

"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.

"The man who considers himself as the most able politician in the Islamic Republic utters such nonsense and empty threats at a very time that the hard line and extremist government of Israel under Mr. Ariel Sharon is looking for justification of its repressive policy against Palestinians", said Mr. Ahmad Salamatian, a veteran political analyst based in Paris.

"At a time that the right wing Israeli government is claiming that the very existence of Israel and the Jews are threatened and uses this pretext as an instrument to advance its policy of repression in Palestine, such statements and ushering such dangerous menaces by one of Iran’s top officials is nothing but bringing water to Israel’s propaganda mill, providing it with more justifications explaining its present maximalist policy", he told the Persian service of Radio France Internationale.

Though Mr. Salamatian is of the opinion that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s words are part of both his own show and the ongoing internal tensions between conservatives and reformers, however, he also agrees with other Iranian analysts that his "untimely" menace could backfire, becoming a justification for threats against Iran, at a time that the United States and its allies are determined to continue the fight against international terrorism.

"One of Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s main characteristics in Iranian politics during the past twenty years is that in order to preserve his own position, he is ready to set fire to all the Caesareas for one handkerchief, including, in the present case, providing Israel with enough pretext to attack Iran", he noted, adding: "for the time being and what is important for Mr. Sharon is that this kind of statements are open invitation for more violence, an encouragement to extremists on either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict".

Observing that despite the fact that Israel is believed to have more than one hundred atomic warheads and the necessary technology to transport them to the very heart of Iran and elsewhere, but no Israeli official nor any newspaper have ever raised the slightest possibility of an atomic threat, "even in defence of their very existence", Mr. Salamatian wondered the reasons behind Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s declaration, which he said should be taken seriously "considering the rank of the man who pronounced it". ENDS RAFSANJANI NUKE THREATS 141201

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles...eats_141201.htm

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who are we dealing with exactly - the legacy of our past mistakes?