China backs up Iran

[romelus]

Yea, my bad - they still fought against a UN army

china had warned the US not to cross the 39th parallel (it did not object to pushing the NK out of SK). the US did so anyway, and continued to advance close to the NK-china border. that's when china got nervous and sent in troops. the countries were definitely not friends then, as can be seen from general mcarthur's recommendation to use nukes on china, so it was not surprising that china got alarmed enough to intervene.

so it was NK that was being aggressive, not china

 

[romelus]

one point everyone seems to have glossed over, is that iran is not "developing nukes". it is enriching uranium, which in itself is completely legal, and could be used for both nuclear power and nukes.

until there is proof that iran is actually making nukes, there just isn't a case for military action. if it was hard to justify invading iraq, i don't see how bush can justify invading iran

 

[G-Man]

one point everyone seems to have glossed over, is that iran is not "developing nukes". it is enriching uranium, which in itself is completely legal, and could be used for both nuclear power and nukes.

until there is proof that iran is actually making nukes, there just isn't a case for military action. if it was hard to justify invading iraq, i don't see how bush can justify invading iran

Since when are military actions taken on the bases of a legal proof? They aren't, and they shouldn't.

 

[romelus]

Since when are military actions taken on the bases of a legal proof? They aren't, and they shouldn't.

you can attack without any proof, you can even attack because you are bored, but it will be even worse than iraq with such insufficient justification. i hardly think the US wants to risk even more international isolation to gain some perceived notions of safety.

 

[G-Man]

you can attack without any proof, you can even attack because you are bored, but it will be even worse than iraq with such insufficient justification. i hardly think the US wants to risk even more international isolation to gain some perceived notions of safety.

I was talking generally. About this case, I think the US would be much better off making sure that Iran won't get nukes anytime soon, even at a diplomatical cost. Once Iran gets nukes there's nothing to stop hezzbollah, and there's very little the US can do about them once they attack.

 

[Sanaz]

Since when are military actions taken on the bases of a legal proof? They aren't, and they shouldn't.

Since the US is a "democracy", there needs to be some accountability for how US troops and military funding is used. This is done through representatives of the people in Congress. It works better when the Executive branch doesn't lie to the people and to congress.

Since there is no valid threat against the US, even though the US is bigger and stronger than other countries, there should be some justification for an invasion. Israel being afraid of (or just disliking) Iran is not "justification". I would hope that other countries of the world would finally stand up (politically and economically, not militarily) to the US and Israel if they go ahead with an "unjustified" attack. It is not a legal issue, it is working in the world together.

Since Israel won't sign the IAEA treaties, and the US won't respect any type of "world court", these two countries are supposedly "above the law". This is not helpful. Of course they can get away with it, for a while at least. Who can stop them?

 

[Sanaz]

I was talking generally. About this case, I think the US would be much better off making sure that Iran won't get nukes anytime soon, even at a diplomatical cost. Once Iran gets nukes there's nothing to stop hezzbollah, and there's very little the US can do about them once they attack.

Isn't Hezbollah in Lebanon, not Iran? Other than Israeli nationalist sources, is there any proof that Iran (as a state) sponsors terrorist groups like Hezbollah? If there were proof, wouldn't more than just Israel blame them for this? I hear this used as justification for stopping Iran, but I have never been satisfied with any "proof". Obviously, there can be classified intelligence information in both the US and Israel which I will never hear about, but I'm talking about a reasonable amount of proof available to all of us.

 

[G-Man]

Since the US is a "democracy", there needs to be some accountability for how US troops and military funding is used. This is done through representatives of the people in Congress. It works better when the Executive branch doesn't lie to the people and to congress.

That's exactly my point. There's no need for a proof "beyond reasonable doubt" or something like that, you just need the backing of your people. And Bush and his party had recieved just that.

Since there is no valid threat against the US, even though the US is bigger and stronger than other countries, there should be some justification for an invasion. Israel being afraid of (or just disliking) Iran is not "justification".

Is supporting the biggest, strongest terror organization enough of a "justification"?

I would hope that other countries of the world would finally stand up (politically and economically, not militarily) to the US and Israel if they go ahead with an "unjustified" attack. It is not a legal issue, it is working in the world together.

I hope other countries will stop ignoring Iran's massive support of terrorism and will unite to stop them before it is too late.

Since Israel won't sign the IAEA treaties, and the US won't respect any type of "world court", these two countries are supposedly "above the law". This is not helpful. Of course they can get away with it, for a while at least. Who can stop them?

When there's be a real international law we'll join it. I don't see why we should care about laws which don't protect us or listen to a court where the judges are appointed based on their political background and have no sense of justice.

 

[Nobody]

That's exactly my point. There's no need for a proof "beyond reasonable doubt" or something like that, you just need the backing of your people. And Bush and his party had recieved just that.

If you need proof to execute a person then shouldnt you need proof to execute a nation. (maybe they dont need proof for there executions in Israel i dont know)

Is supporting the biggest, strongest terror organization enough of a "justification"?

Do you mean Al Queda? or Palastine terrorist? and is there proof that they support them?

I hope other countries will stop ignoring Iran's massive support of terrorism and will unite to stop them before it is too late.

If Isreal hates them Iran so much why dont they deal to them. Insted of the rest of the worlds armys being killed because isreal is scared of Iran.

When there's be a real international law we'll join it. I don't see why we should care about laws which don't protect us or listen to a court where the judges are appointed based on their political background and have no sense of justice.

If everyone thinks this way there will never be a international court.

DISCLAIMER Somewhere in this thread i said Osama isnt that bad. I dont know why i said that. He is bad i was just being smart.

 

[G-Man]

Isn't Hezbollah in Lebanon, not Iran? Other than Israeli nationalist sources, is there any proof that Iran (as a state) sponsors terrorist groups like Hezbollah? If there were proof, wouldn't more than just Israel blame them for this? I hear this used as justification for stopping Iran, but I have never been satisfied with any "proof". Obviously, there can be classified intelligence information in both the US and Israel which I will never hear about, but I'm talking about a reasonable amount of proof available to all of us.

There are plenty of proofs. It is generally considered as a widely known fact. Starting from the case of Israeli navigator Ron Arad, who was captured by hezzbollah and then transfered to Iran (according to Israel, American and european sources), through Iranian weapons captured on hezzbollah ships (including the Karine A which had hezzbollah members on it), going on to Palestinians who were trained in Iran and then used as contacts with hezzobllah, thousands of rockets reportedly held by hezzbollah and supplied by Iran (along with other weapons), Iranian revolution guard members who are stationed in Lebanon to work along side with hezzbollah, constant reports about connections between the two, and up to the latest example - an Iranian unmanned aircraft provided by Iran to hezzbollah which flew over Israel just a few days ago.
The fact is that everyone treats it as if it's just common knowledge. There are so many evidences that neither side is really trying to hide the connection.


Here's what a quick google search brought up:
The party was long supported by Iran, which provided it with arms and money.

In its early days, Hezbollah was close to a contingent of some 2000 Iranian Revolutionary guards, based in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to Lebanon in 1982 to aid the resistance against Israel.

As Hezbollah escalated its guerrilla attacks on Israeli targets in southern Lebanon, its military aid from Iran increased.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm


From Australia: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn42.pdf
(note that it is a .pdf file)

And thugh you asked for no Israeli sources, I really think you should try reading this one, as it sums up the basics:
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/hizbullah/chap_c.doc
(winword file)

 

[G-Man]

If you need proof to execute a person then shouldnt you need proof to execute a nation. (maybe they dont need proof for there executions in Israel i dont know)

Israel doesn't have a death penalty. In any case, there's a profound difference. A state has the advantage of being much stronger than any of its individual citizens. As such it can afford itself to demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, and if evidences are found in the future or other crimes are commited it can arrest him again. This doesn't exist between states, because while the US is stronger than Iran, it is no where near the great difference required for such a system. And if Iran gets nukes the US won't have the ability to take them away from it.

Do you mean Al Queda? or Palastine terrorist? and is there proof that they support them?

Look at my post about hezbollah.

If Isreal hates them Iran so much why dont they deal to them. Insted of the rest of the worlds armys being killed because isreal is scared of Iran.

Because we can't. Israel doesn't have the ability to take down all Iranian nuclear facilities without using nuclear weapons.

If everyone thinks this way there will never be a international court.

The way that it is built today maybe it's better not to have it.

 

[Sanaz]

There are plenty of proofs. It is generally considered as a widely known fact.

I'll do some research on my own, thanks for the links. I'll hold off further judgment until then.

I am curious. If there is a clear and indisputable link between Iran and Hezbollah, everyone knows that Hezbollah has people stationed in Lebanon just across the Israeli border, and Hezbollah has taken responsibility for terrorist action against Israel, why has there been no swift and very public action against them? This would fall directly under the category of national security. If this has been true for years, why would Israel and the US waste time all over the place, and ignore this very large problem right in front of them? These facts just don't add up. Both the US and Israel have taken action based on a lot less than this, and I don't picture either playing the "martyr" role very well.

 

[King Alexander]

one point everyone seems to have glossed over, is that iran is not "developing nukes". it is enriching uranium, which in itself is completely legal, and could be used for both nuclear power and nukes.

This is an arguement I wanted to point out: Turkey is doing the same as Iran, enriching uranium, and it's PERFECTLY legal. It takes a long way to make a bomb, and even if you suceed and you don't have good missiles capable of carrying the bomb, then it's useless.

until there is proof that iran is actually making nukes, there just isn't a case for military action. if it was hard to justify invading iraq, i don't see how bush can justify invading iran

In GWB's world, there is no sense of logic, just paranoia.

Since when are military actions taken on the bases of a legal proof? They aren't, and they shouldn't.

I expected something better from you, G-Man, because someone else did that exactly to you, in the 40's.

I would hope that other countries of the world would finally stand up (politically and economically, not militarily) to the US and Israel if they go ahead with an "unjustified" attack. It is not a legal issue, it is working in the world together.

That's exactly what it should be done.

 

[G-Man]

I am curious. If there is a clear and indisputable link between Iran and Hezbollah, everyone knows that Hezbollah has people stationed in Lebanon just across the Israeli border, and Hezbollah has taken responsibility for terrorist action against Israel, why has there been no swift and very public action against them? This would fall directly under the category of national security. If this has been true for years, why would Israel and the US waste time all over the place, and ignore this very large problem right in front of them? These facts just don't add up. Both the US and Israel have taken action based on a lot less than this, and I don't picture either playing the "martyr" role very well.

What kind of action do you expect us to take?

 

[G-Man]

I expected something better from you, G-Man, because someone else did that exactly to you, in the 40's.

On the contrary. Hitler's actions against Jews and other minorities had nothing to do with a military action and therefore nothing to do with what I said. However other European countries, most notably Britain and France, have chosen to treat Germany like an ally untill they can be prooven differently. There were a lot of indications that hitler was going to start a very big war, but there was no proof "beyond reasonable doubt", the kind that can be good enough for a court, so the Europeans chose to make deals with Hitler look how well it worked out for them and for us.

 

[-0blivion-]

Iran, the UK, Germany and France are 'very close' to making Iran a deal on the Uranium enrichement issue. Europe wants Iran to suspend enrichment of uranium in return for a trade deal, and an opportunity to buy nuclear fuel. the article says. Ah, the diplomatic solution. Much better alternative to war

BBC

 

[G-Man]

Iran, the UK, Germany and France are 'very close' to making Iran a deal on the Uranium enrichement issue. Europe wants Iran to suspend enrichment of uranium in return for a trade deal, and an opportunity to buy nuclear fuel. the article says. Ah, the diplomatic solution. Much better alternative to war

BBC

It's preferable if it can be done, but even if an agreement can be reached we must be careful not to let Iran follow in North Korea's steps.

 

[King Alexander]

@G-Man: I understand what you mean.

@-Oblivion-: Yes, of course there're alternatives to war, and, as G-Man agreed, it's better to avoid wars.

 

[romelus]

I was talking generally. About this case, I think the US would be much better off making sure that Iran won't get nukes anytime soon, even at a diplomatical cost. Once Iran gets nukes there's nothing to stop hezzbollah, and there's very little the US can do about them once they attack.

actually iran poses no threat to the US itself even if it developed a nuke. it doesn't have a missile system to deliver it to continental US, nor does iran have a death wish by trying to nuke the US via terrorists. the problems you describe are israeli problems, and you should probably try to convince your own government to attack iran, instead of hoping the US will do the dirty work for you.

 

[G-Man]

actually iran poses no threat to the US itself even if it developed a nuke. it doesn't have a missile system to deliver it to continental US, nor does iran have a death wish by trying to nuke the US via terrorists. the problems you describe are israeli problems, and you should probably try to convince your own government to attack iran, instead of hoping the US will do the dirty work for you.

First, Israel and the US are allies, so it's perfectly logical for the US to aid Israel in this. Secondly, Iran is most certainly a threat to the US. Hezbollah has already commited terror attacks in the US, and once Iran has nukes the US won't be able to stop hezbollah from attacking them. The only thing keeping them from doing so now is the fact that they know Iran will be destroyed if they attack the US.