Any wagers on when we invade Iran

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@Nov 19 2004, 08:21 PM
Remember the last time Powell made such reckless circumstantial statements, it was proven that he lied ( wilfully or unintentional is still out for debate) but the fact is he was wrong...

should we do that as a policy rather than at least try to maintain some discretion in our statemnts? or do we believe we are intimidating the enemy?

Such statements are not new in any adminstration. The Clinton administration, for example, made the same statements about Iraqi WMD development as Bush's. So did the rest of the world. Google to ya. Same thing on Iran. Sanctions were placed on Iran in the mid 1990s because it was deemed likely that they were attempting to develop nuclear weapons. This was economic warfare based on "intelligence". Wars have started as a result of such events. Why did Pearl Harbor happen? Even the invasion of a country on the basic of intelligence is not new. It's even happened in the US before. How did the Spanish American War start?

I think the US, like everyone else, should continue to make such statements.

The UN and IAEA have stated non proliferation as their goals. What should be the consequences of developing nuclear programs in defiance of these organizations? I think it is the greatest issue of our times. I think it was for the past 50 years and it has already been screwed up multiple times. Should we continue to let the world arm? I am worried that "Mutual Assured Destruction" will only lead to "Mutual Assured Destruction". Maybe it won't. Who knows? Why take chances? Most of the world is already on board with the principle of non-proliferation.

I am not advocating invading Iran on circumstantial or any other such evidence. I really don't know the solution and i'm not going to pretend there is a solution. What is the proper response to state sponsored terror and proliferation? Reagan's solution was to bomb, Clinton's solution was to bomb, Bush's solution was to invade. Who knows? Maybe we go back to bombing.

If the security council would agree on more vigorous and unlimited inspection terms backed up by the willingness to intervene with military action I think proliferation would stop. If a nation fails to comply with inspections at any time, military action would remove the leaders of that nation. I think this would have prevented Saddam from his continual decade of noncompliance and all the bombings and eventual invasion. The full weight of the security council would lend the authority neccessary to force compliance. As it is right now, the security council's greatest threat is pushing paper and that - as always - is having no effect.

The US failed in that it invaded a nation that had no WMDs based on "intelligence". The UN failed in that it threatened Saddam's continual noncompliance with nothing but more words.

I prefer Bush's unilateral interventions - and Clinton's more limited ones for that matter - and a divided UN to the prospect of a nuclear Iran, Syria, or North Korea. I'd much prefer that the UN Security Council realize signing papers isn't going to stop these nations from developing WMDs. Is there anyone that disagrees that the UN paperworks factory is not going to stop such states from defiantly developing WMDs. We have paper but the other guys have scissors. We can stop them with rocks.

The UN exists not just to stop wars from happening. It exists to prevent the security fears such as those that lead to World War I and many other wars for that matter. After 9/11, the world's most powerful nation now has a security fear that the UN seems unwilling or unable to resolve. The possible combination of WMDs developed by a state getting into the hands of powerful and well-funded international terrorist organization is now the security issue of the millenium. What will the UN do to ease this situation? If nothing, it has failed as an organization and wars will be the result.

I think the US has an obligation to get this point across better with the UN and attempt to affect a fundamental change in how the organization handles such threats. I don't think the US has done a good job yet (neither in the 90s or the 00s). If it is not possible - if the world does not agree on the seriousness of the thread - continued unilateral actions are likely to be the rule of the day leading to a possible failure and maybe even dissolution of the UN. I believe this is the choice the world faces. I don't think any of that will change in 2008.