Containing Iran

Saudis... Israelis... Afghanistan... are we going to dance around and discuss everything BUT Iranian containment?

1. Israel has as much right to voice their opinions as anyone else, signatory or not. Especially so, considering they are the ones most at risk according to the rhetoric coming from Iran. That is equivalent to saying Iran is not allowed an opinion on Israeli existence, since they didn't participate in the mandates establishing Palestine.

2. The nationality of the al-Qaida operatives in the 9/11 attacks are immaterial, unless the attack was directly ordered by the Saudi government. When one goes to war against an entity, one doesn't assault areas that are immaterial to the war. al-Qaida and bin Laden in particular were being harbored by the Taliban, not the Saudis.

Really, are you going to get around to addressing the Iranian question?

reply to post by nenothtu


peck420 is absolutely correct in that Israel has no say in the matter in that they are not member's of the treaty states.

Try reading the link I left instead asking for help in the understanding of this blatantly obvious set of double standards.

reply to post by Witness2008


OK. I read the link. There are no double standards at all that you have been able to enumerate, so we can now dispense with discussion of Israel, and get on with the topic of the thread, Iran.

reply to post by nenothtu


Hmmm....thought we were talking about containment. You believe Iran should be contained.....I don't. You also think its O.K to chuck a few bombs at Iran when Iran has shown zero aggression to any other State.....says a lot.

And about the source this thread is based on....it's an editorial....an opinion.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Hmmm....thought we were talking about containment. You believe Iran should be contained.....I don't. You also think its O.K to chuck a few bombs at Iran when Iran has shown zero aggression to any other State.....says a lot.

And about the source this thread is based on....it's an editorial....an opinion.

Exactly. we are talking about containment... of Iran. Not Israel. Somehow, though, folks keep trying to sneak Israel in. Looks more like an attempt at misdirection to me.

Yes, I believe Iran should be contained. Yes, I think that when the time comes, it will be perfectly acceptable to chuck explosives at them, if containment should fail.

Zero aggression? How do you class taking diplomats hostage (in violation of diplomatic immunity, I might add), and attacking foreign ships in international waters who are in violation of nothing at all, and taking their crews hostage? I suppose threats aren't really aggressive, but I can see how they might lead one to expect aggression. I don't know about you, but when I receive a threat, I don't just sit around and see what will materialize. I prepare for it, and do what I can to minimize the possibility of it's realization. To do otherwise is irresponsible, and inviting trouble.

I won't go into the capture of border-crossers, because I have no beef with Iran on that score. As far as I'm concerned, Iran is perfectly within their rights to capture anyone who strays into their country, for whatever reason. The humane thing to do would be to release them back to their own countries, but I'm not saying Iran is humane by any means, nor are they required to be.

Nor do I expect it.

Yes, the thread is based upon an editorial, an opinion piece.

As are the posts within the thread opinion.

I haven't violated an international law with my opinion, have I?

reply to post by Witness2008


Well I haven't been advocating "Bombing" Iran...

I think you're right neno some how when discussing Iran people tend to want to force Israel into the discussion.
As if Iran could do no wrong Because "Israel this, Israel that"

reply to post by nenothtu


That wasn't so hard was it. Now that we have all justified our opinions we can agree to disagree and put all the innuendo away. By the way I am not a "young sir".

reply to post by SLAYER69


My opinion is based upon the principles of existing international law and the spirit of the treaty in question. For you or anyone else to insist I not take into account the reason (Israel) for the turmoil in the region is a bit...well...pompous.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu

 

That wasn't so hard was it. Now that we have all justified our opinions we can agree to disagree and put all the innuendo away. By the way I am not a "young sir".

Nope, wasn't hard at all. I apologize for the "young sir" label - I assumed you were male, and I tend to see everyone as young - both are assumptions and personal failings on my part. Be that as it may, I apologize for it.

For the record, I don't advocate bombing Iran, but I do believe that option must be kept open at all times, hence my comment about "not having a problem" with it. I think such action should be held in reserve as a last resort, and is infinitely preferrable to attempting any sort of "invasion" that I see so much talk of.

Either way, I believe something will have to be done about the Iranian government, either internally by the people for the people, or externally, when they attempt to make good on their threats.

Until then, and hopefully in it's stead, containment is the only viable option I see that will get their attention.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

My opinion is based upon the principles of existing international law and the spirit of the treaty in question. For you or anyone else to insist I not take into account the reason (Israel) for the turmoil in the region is a bit...well...pompous.

The principles of international law may be a beautiful thing, but the letter of international law is what governs.

The spirit of a treaty may also be a wonderful thing, but you can't get so much as a cup of coffee at McDonalds with it.

Blaming all tensions in the region on Israel is a bit short-sighted, in my estimation. War has been endemic throughout the region for over 5000 years, long before the modern state of Israel was in existence. Israel is an excuse for bad behavior, not the cause of it.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

My opinion is based upon the principles of existing international law and the spirit of the treaty in question. For you or anyone else to insist I not take into account the reason (Israel) for the turmoil in the region is a bit...well...pompous.

So what you're saying is that the reason Iran is defying the international Community is becuase Israel has issues with Palestine? I'm not a big fan of Israels actions but one has nothing to do with the other in My Opinion.

Except here at ATS.

reply to post by nenothtu


For any country the only meaningful and lasting change will come from within. I have major issues with Iran....the way women are subjugated and placed below the value of a man. But for anyone to come to the defense of women during a debate and then advocate bombing a country thereby putting women and children at risk for policies that are not their own is disingenuous.

I have serious issues with Israel... as much as my own country. I simply call it as I see it.

reply to post by Witness2008


I don't know that I was defending women per se, as I was pretty harsh concerning the fate of Mrs. Lewis. I was more condemning the 7th century practices of Iranian clerics in sentencing a woman to death by stoning for adultery, and pointing out the discrepancies in Oozy's disingenuous attempt to equate adultery with murder in order to try to compare apples to oranges. No, I believe women should have equal rights, so I wouldn't be any quicker to defend a woman that I would a man under such conditions.

As far as bombing Iran goes, I don't advocate it, but I feel it needs to be held in reserve as an option should all else fail, and in that case I wouldn't have any problem with it at all. In that respect, I don't hold any Iranian as more valuable than one of my own boys, and would prefer the decimation of Iran to the death of a single one of my own in any ill conceived invasion attempt.

That choice is, of course, still up to Iran. Don't make it necessary, then it don't happen.

We both know THAT choice is out of my hands, though, and generals and politicians seem not to have a problem with stacking soldiers bodies up like cord wood if it gets them what they want.

As has been said, the soldiers do all the fighting, and the kings take all the glory. The Afghan conflict could have been wrapped up long ago and all our troops back home, with far fewer American deaths, if glory hound generals hadn't insisted on their day in the sun.

If it comes down to it, I fear Iran would be no different.

That's why I would prefer bombs to bullets if the Iranians insist on a tussle. You can bet they won't let the professionals handle it. Next best thing is explosives.

With enough topographic rearrangement, internal change becomes irrelevant.

Edit to add: I can see where I'm giving a wrong impression by not fully explaining myself. Concerning the above mentioned "topographic rearrangement" etc, internal change is FAR preferrable to that. In my view, containment would enhance the chances of internal change, by the people and for the people, and for the good of all, Iranians, Americans, and the rest of the world included. I don't expect a western-style democracy (although Iran may be one of the more capable countries in that region in that regard), but SOMETHING has to change in their theocratic government, and it's bellicose statements. The world won't go forever looking back over it's shoulder, and should Israel succumb, one has to wonder... who's next? Saudi Arabia? Lebanon? Iraq?

You can bet, given the history of the region, and the Arabs and Persians going all the way back to Cyrus, that they wouldn't stop at just one little country, so far from home. No, that space would be nothing more than an outpost for the next phase.

From what i understand Israel and/or the US have already attacked Iran at Natanz with the Stuxnet worm, this with the heavy sanctions are a good way of containing Iran, supporting the opposition and we don't have to worry about them anymore..


www.richardsilverstein.com...

reply to post by nenothtu


You have asked repeatedly why we should contain Iran.

I have question for you.

Why should we let a known aggressor country, the US, contain a non aggressive country?

Everybody wants to keep using words like "logically" and "potential" and any other type for FUTURE percieved outcomes, when based on the very things they are asking, there is only one party involved to be afraid of.

The UNITED STATES.

Iran needs no containment, if they were left alone there wouldn't be a problem, but no, the west feels the need to push and push and push, then they have the AUDACITY to be suprised when they get pushed back.

To all the Americans, FIGURE IT OUT, your government IS the global BULLY, it is just a matter of time until all those that they have pushed around start to push back.

And we are debating why Iran should be contained....

Iran hasn't ATTACKED another country since the 1700's. When was the last time the United States attacked a country?

I used to be so confused why the east calls the US the Great Deciever, etc...well when your government enters the world stage and offers nothing but hypocrisy, yea, I can see were they are coming from.

I pose all of the readers in FAVOUR of containment to post EVIDENCE of why we should be afraid of Iran.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

My opinion is based upon the principles of existing international law and the spirit of the treaty in question. For you or anyone else to insist I not take into account the reason (Israel) for the turmoil in the region is a bit...well...pompous.

Well apparently Israel wont be asked to sign the treaty.

Agency Will Not Ask Israel to Sign Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

i am having a alot of problems with this thread

i hear the words "containment" i hear the "live and let them do whatever they want mentality"

my problems are these

iran is currently holding 2 american hikers in imprisioned
iran sent mercenaries into iraq and funded and trained them that led to american deaths
iran is still training and funding the taliban that are leading to american deaths

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes to this country and the us gives that man the world stage to spew whatever he sees fit in saying whats more shocking is the us and the majority of hte international community do nothing what do they is agree with him.

iran is clearly anti us anti isreali yeah the country believes in the freedom of speech but at the expense of loss of american life.

if you people do not think that iran hasnt done anything at all go talk to any serviceman in this country you will get a real unbiased factual accountting of the events that unfolded in iraq and still ongoing in afghansitan.


containment NO iraq was "contained" saddam tried to assinate george h bush and clinton did nothing.

to me iran seriously needs to be dealt with in a more serious manner other than war.-caviat it may take war or a coup d'etat .

iran is nothing but about its own power and its own ambitions nuclear engery doesnt fly for me iran wants to bomb plain and simple and when they get it they will us it on isreal and the us and whoever else they see as a threat.

i dont expect anyone here to agree with me on this one but whats going on clearly isnt working and it needs to be changed.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You have asked repeatedly why we should contain Iran.

No I haven't. I've not asked that anywhere at all. I already know why Iran should be contained, and have expounded on it.

I have question for you.

Why should we let a known aggressor country, the US, contain a non aggressive country?

Because if the US is such an "aggressor" it would be dangerous to stop it? That's as good an excuse as any, I suppose.

Everybody wants to keep using words like "logically" and "potential" and any other type for FUTURE percieved outcomes,

"Future"? "perceived"? My beef with Iran goes back 30 years or more. It's nothing new. Iran just likes to keep piling thing on, though. No, its neither "future" nor "perceived", It's historical fact and ongoing threats and actions.

when based on the very things they are asking, there is only one party involved to be afraid of.

The UNITED STATES.

That's your prerogative - you're allowed to fear any old folks you want to. Be afraid. VERY afraid.

Iran needs no containment, if they were left alone there wouldn't be a problem, but no, the west feels the need to push and push and push, then they have the AUDACITY to be surprised when they get pushed back.

We've seen where "leaving them alone" gets us. Ask J. Carter about it some time.

To all the Americans, FIGURE IT OUT, your government IS the global BULLY, it is just a matter of time until all those that they have pushed around start to push back.

Yeah, sucks to get slapped down when you jump up in a "bullys" face, now don't it? Probably better to leave them alone, if they're all that dangerous.

And we are debating why Iran should be contained...

.

Congrats! You finally figured out the topic of the thread - containing IRAN, not containing the US. If it makes you any happier, though, I'd be more than happy to withdraw all US assets, troops, bucks, everything - back inside US borders and seal the borders up tighter than a drum. "Contain" ourselves voluntarily, and let the world's whiners fend for themselves.

Iran hasn't ATTACKED another country since the 1700's. When was the last time the United States attacked a country?

Your problem there seems to be your definition of the word "attack". There are many more ways than the good 'ol frontal assault, which is so costly in gold and blood. Iran knows that. I'm surprised you don't.

I used to be so confused why the east calls the US the Great Deciever, etc...well when your government enters the world stage and offers nothing but hypocrisy, yea, I can see were they are coming from.

Cool! You should move there, then. You can probably get a pretty cushy job in the propaganda ministry.

I pose all of the readers in FAVOUR of containment to post EVIDENCE of why we should be afraid of Iran.

You want MORE? Sure, no problem. Just tell me what sort you'll accept. I have a funny feeling that you won't accept ANY, though. Already having your mind made up, you seem not to want to be confused at this point with facts.

To be honest, I don't see any reason we should be "afraid" of Iran, but plenty of reason to be wary.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

... We still have enough nukes to obliterate the world over...

If you don't mind, I'd like to see the facts and figures that lead you to that erroneous conclusion. Perhaps I can point out the flaw in the logic.

Last count 5,113 Nuclear warheads Active or in reserve...As of 3 months ago.
www.businessweek.com...

Two relatively low-yield bombs defeated Japan...and most agree the second one was unneccessary.

Pretty flimsy basis to draw such a sweeping conclusion on. You have any idea of the breakdown of the yields of those 5,113 warheads? Figures on the damage potential of them? Of course, you may have an out, by re-defining "obliteration of the world over".

.............
Destroy the world? Not a chance. too much world, too few nukes - and that's counting ALL the world nuclear arsenals.

Seriously???

Uhh...OK.

The US has 5K nukes...thier are 200 nations on earth...so lets just say we drop 10 Nukes on each every country on the globe.

Correction...We do not have enough Nuclear weapons to "Obliterate the world"...but rather significantly cripple humanity and civilization for a very long span of time.

As long as we are getting all crazy literal in our wording...I would go further to propose "Destroying the world" is immpossible...as long as thier is a big hunk of rock orbiting in relatively the same margin of "life zone" from the sun and bacteria of some sort survive, life will spring anew and evolve regardless of what happens.

Originally posted by nenothtu
If it makes you any happier, though, I'd be more than happy to withdraw all US assets, troops, bucks, everything - back inside US borders and seal the borders up tighter than a drum. "Contain" ourselves voluntarily, and let the world's whiners fend for themselves.

If only your government was so considerate.

Still you won't be able to afford all those troops much longer.