China backs up Iran

[romelus]

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.

so now you want logic to dictate wether the US should attack iran to help israel. logic says iran is legally enriching uranium, and that just isn't enough to justify an attack.

secondly, you are equating hezbollah with iran. if iran developed a nuke, it does not mean hezbollah will get a nuke too. in fact, unless the iranian leaders have a death wish, they wouldn't attempt to nuke the US via any means. if iran needed nukes for anything, it was to use as a deterant to an invasion, much like north korea is detering an american invasion with nuclear force.

 

[G-Man]

so now you want logic to dictate wether the US should attack iran to help israel. logic says iran is legally enriching uranium, and that just isn't enough to justify an attack.

Logic says that Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism, and as such it should be a prime target in the war against terrorism, and its regime must not be allowed to gain nuclear abilities, certainly not when the US has the ability to stop them from getting it within a matter of hours and with a minimal risk.

secondly, you are equating hezbollah with iran. if iran developed a nuke, it does not mean hezbollah will get a nuke too. in fact, unless the iranian leaders have a death wish, they wouldn't attempt to nuke the US via any means. if iran needed nukes for anything, it was to use as a deterant to an invasion, much like north korea is detering an american invasion with nuclear force.

That's what I'm saying. Iran won't use the nuke directly, it will use it in order to eliminate the threat of being invaded. But this threat is what keeps them from using their terrorism capabilities, and as such it must be preserved.

 

[romelus]

Logic says that Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism, and as such it should be a prime target in the war against terrorism, and its regime must not be allowed to gain nuclear abilities, certainly not when the US has the ability to stop them from getting it within a matter of hours and with a minimal risk.

i'm not much into slogans, such as the "war against terrorism". if america wants to conduct a war against iran. it needs some clear justifications for doing so. even when bush tried to justify iraq as part of the war on terrorism, he needed to find reasons (wmd, dictatorship, etc.). the iraq invasion almost cost bush his presidency, if he tries to attack iran under the current set of justifications (enriching uranium, which is legal, and supporting hezbollah, which may be threatening to israel but with minimal impact for america compared to al qaeda), he might face impeachment

the military risk of a quick strike followed by a pullout, or a bombing mission, may be small. but the diplomatic risk is severe, especially with iraq still leaving a bad taste. the US logically will not jeopardize its own welfare when there is little to gain (no oil and no business contracts without occupation), and when the iranian threat is largely restricted to israel, which already has nukes of its own to deter an iranian nuclear attack.

That's what I'm saying. Iran won't use the nuke directly, it will use it in order to eliminate the threat of being invaded. But this threat is what keeps them from using their terrorism capabilities, and as such it must be preserved.

again iran is not developing nukes, it's still in the legal stage of enriching uranium. so unless one can find evidence that iran is making nukes, there is insufficient reason for the US to do anything other than making empty demands. if in the future iran is found to be making nukes against international nuclear non-proliferation treaty, then there may be sufficient justification to take military action

 

[G-Man]

i'm not much into slogans, such as the "war against terrorism". if america wants to conduct a war against iran. it needs some clear justifications for doing so. even when bush tried to justify iraq as part of the war on terrorism, he needed to find reasons (wmd, dictatorship, etc.). the iraq invasion almost cost bush his presidency, if he tries to attack iran under the current set of justifications (enriching uranium, which is legal, and supporting hezbollah, which may be threatening to israel but with minimal impact for america compared to al qaeda), he might face impeachment

His chief problem with Iraq was that he hang for the argument of WMDs. In Iran there's a very clear and well known link to international terrorism.

the military risk of a quick strike followed by a pullout, or a bombing mission, may be small. but the diplomatic risk is severe, especially with iraq still leaving a bad taste. the US logically will not jeopardize its own welfare when there is little to gain (no oil and no business contracts without occupation), and when the iranian threat is largely restricted to israel, which already has nukes of its own to deter an iranian nuclear attack.

So if Hezbollah launches rockets at northern Israel or crash a plane into the sears tower you'll want to nuke Iran?

again iran is not developing nukes, it's still in the legal stage of enriching uranium. so unless one can find evidence that iran is making nukes, there is insufficient reason for the US to do anything other than making empty demands. if in the future iran is found to be making nukes against international nuclear non-proliferation treaty, then there may be sufficient justification to take military action

The US needed nearly a decade to conclude that Israel probably has nukes, and decades more in order to have a real proof of it. The chase after Iraq's WMDs and after Bin Laden shows just how reliable the US's intelligence is in these matters. I don't see why the lifes of thousands of people should depend upon an intelligence service which had been wrong in so many cases before. When you face with the risk of thousands of dead and the possible need to invade three countries, one of which will be armed with nukes, I think it's much better to just make sure such a situation can't happen. Even if it means Iran will have to "somehow" find other fuels for their power plants.

 

[Sanaz]

The US needed nearly a decade to conclude that Israel probably has nukes, and decades more in order to have a real proof of it. The chase after Iraq's WMDs and after Bin Laden shows just how reliable the US's intelligence is in these matters. I don't see why the lifes of thousands of people should depend upon an intelligence service which had been wrong in so many cases before.

Isn't this an argument against US action against Iran? If the president makes a move, it can't be because "our intelligence is so bad, we'd better be safe than sorry". Worse still is if the US makes a move based on Israeli intelligence. War based on questionable information, or information gathered from sources with a "motive", is exactly what we have seen in Iraq. No need for a repeat. You had stated earlier - there are many methods, before attack, which can be used. Financial and political first, and when that fails, explore military alternatives. The "hidden costs" of an aggressive policy are very large, especially for the governments/nations trying to take the "high road" (Israel, US, UK). It's hard to be on the side that has more rules to follow, but it pays off hundreds over in the long run.

 

[G-Man]

Isn't this an argument against US action against Iran? If the president makes a move, it can't be because "our intelligence is so bad, we'd better be safe than sorry". Worse still is if the US makes a move based on Israeli intelligence. War based on questionable information, or information gathered from sources with a "motive", is exactly what we have seen in Iraq. No need for a repeat. You had stated earlier - there are many methods, before attack, which can be used. Financial and political first, and when that fails, explore military alternatives. The "hidden costs" of an aggressive policy are very large, especially for the governments/nations trying to take the "high road" (Israel, US, UK). It's hard to be on the side that has more rules to follow, but it pays off hundreds over in the long run.

I have no objection to taking other means in order to stop Iran from getting nukes, if diplomacy can assure us that they'll stop their projects I'm all for it. But when talking about a situation with such terrible consequences, we must make sure that they don't get their nukes. We can't rely on intelligence to tell us when they're planning to use their knowledge in order to create nukes, and as a result the only option is to stop them from enriching uranium.

 

[King Alexander]

We can't rely on intelligence to tell us when they're planning to use their knowledge in order to create nukes, and as a result the only option is to stop them from enriching uranium.

We can rely on the IAEA(spelling) for giving us the information we need. The IAEA had repeatedly said time and time again that there were no proofs that Iraq had WMD, but we bombed it, anyway.

With that kind of logic, all countries should be bombed just to make sure that they're not hiding anything.

 

[G-Man]

We can rely on the IAEA(spelling) for giving us the information we need. The IAEA had repeatedly said time and time again that there were no proofs that Iraq had WMD, but we bombed it, anyway.

I don't see how this makes the IAEA reliable for this matter. It didn't say that Iraq had WMDs, but it also didn't have any way of making sure that it doesn't have them.

With that kind of logic, all countries should be bombed just to make sure that they're not hiding anything.

This is why we're required to use common sense. When a country sends strong threats at other countries, builds a gigantic terror orgnization which it can't fully use because it would risk its own safety and then tries to develop capabilities that would allow them to develop nuclear weapons easily and probably without being detected, logic says that there's a very good chance that they're trying to gain nukes. Add to that the fact that more than a few intelligence agencies have sources saying that they're trying to gain nukes and the fact that they're in close connections with North Korea and you have a situation where it's very likely that Iran is trying to get nukes.

So you have on the one hand a situation where they are allowed to gain nukes, a move which would lead to the unleashing of hezbollah and probably several thousands of dead civilians, and on the other hand a situation where their nuclear facilities are bombed. The results of such a move are so minimal, and the possible consequences of not doing so are so dire, that I really don't see why it shouldn't be done. Why risk these thousands of civilians?

 

[King Alexander]

I don't support fundamentalists, and of course, they're people who are mad enough to do anything.
That's why I'd insist on strict visits of the IAEA to countries who're controlled by the first, BUT, we can't forget, not for a moment, that the majority of people in all countries hardly have to do anything with terrorism, as they only try work for their living.

 

[G-Man]

I don't support fundamentalists, and of course, they're people who are mad enough to do anything.
That's why I'd insist on strict visits of the IAEA to countries who're controlled by the first, BUT, we can't forget, not for a moment, that the majority of people in all countries hardly have to do anything with terrorism, as they only try work for their living.

The military reaction I'm talking about is an Osiraq like attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. If such an attack is done soon enough, no one who doesn't work in there will get hurt.

 

[romelus]

His chief problem with Iraq was that he hang for the argument of WMDs. In Iran there's a very clear and well known link to international terrorism.

the bush administration is aware of this. but that alone isn't enough to make an attack inevitable. while israel may feel most of the effects, the US is more concerned about osama and al qaeda, at least they were supposed to be until iraq came along

So if Hezbollah launches rockets at northern Israel or crash a plane into the sears tower you'll want to nuke Iran?

nuking is out of the question. bush isn't crazy enough to nuke a country until the US is nuked. now if you mean attacking conventionally. northern israel, probably not. sears tower, most likely yes

The US needed nearly a decade to conclude that Israel probably has nukes, and decades more in order to have a real proof of it. The chase after Iraq's WMDs and after Bin Laden shows just how reliable the US's intelligence is in these matters. I don't see why the lifes of thousands of people should depend upon an intelligence service which had been wrong in so many cases before. When you face with the risk of thousands of dead and the possible need to invade three countries, one of which will be armed with nukes, I think it's much better to just make sure such a situation can't happen. Even if it means Iran will have to "somehow" find other fuels for their power plants.

you see, if there's no diplomatic consequence to bombing iranian uranium enrichment sites, bush would have sent in bombers already. but currently the damage to international relations isn't worth it. israel may be an US ally, but it's still not america.

 

[G-Man]

the bush administration is aware of this. but that alone isn't enough to make an attack inevitable. while israel may feel most of the effects, the US is more concerned about osama and al qaeda, at least they were supposed to be until iraq came along

I fail to see the contradiction. The US is so busy fighting Bin Laden that they can't spare a few B-2s for one night? Please. The logistics are the easiest part of this operation.

nuking is out of the question. bush isn't crazy enough to nuke a country until the US is nuked. now if you mean attacking conventionally. northern israel, probably not. sears tower, most likely yes

And how are you going to conventionaly attack a country with nuclear weapons and missiles covering the entire middle east and much of Europe and Asia?

you see, if there's no diplomatic consequence to bombing iranian uranium enrichment sites, bush would have sent in bombers already. but currently the damage to international relations isn't worth it. israel may be an US ally, but it's still not america.

1. If the US wants to remain a super power, and Bush certainly seems to want that, it needs to protect its allies. Just like the Israeli attack in Osiraq served American interests, there's no reason why the US won't make an attack that would serve chiefly Israeli interests.
2. Hezbollah as just as dangerous to the US as is Al Qaeda. They have the same agenda about it and the same abilities to work overseas, but with more funding, more members, more experience and more weapons.
3. The US took over Iraq, despite very strong European and Arab opposition. Do you really think the diplomatic pressure of European countries who aren't too happy about Iran and Arab countries who are afraid of it will stop it? If Iran won't stop enriching uranium Bush will attack.

 

[romelus]

I fail to see the contradiction. The US is so busy fighting Bin Laden that they can't spare a few B-2s for one night? Please. The logistics are the easiest part of this operation.

because the diplomatic cost is too high. i already stated that.

also, if it's that easy, why won't israel send bombers itself? does it want the benefit without the cost?

And how are you going to conventionaly attack a country with nuclear weapons and missiles covering the entire middle east and much of Europe and Asia?

are you talking about the current situation or are you talking about the future? i'm talking about what the US will realistically do now, not in your hypothetical future scenario

1. If the US wants to remain a super power, and Bush certainly seems to want that, it needs to protect its allies. Just like the Israeli attack in Osiraq served American interests, there's no reason why the US won't make an attack that would serve chiefly Israeli interests.
2. Hezbollah as just as dangerous to the US as is Al Qaeda. They have the same agenda about it and the same abilities to work overseas, but with more funding, more members, more experience and more weapons.
3. The US took over Iraq, despite very strong European and Arab opposition. Do you really think the diplomatic pressure of European countries who aren't too happy about Iran and Arab countries who are afraid of it will stop it? If Iran won't stop enriching uranium Bush will attack.

1. there's no reason they would attack iran now either. they can, but there's no incentive. you may have all the incentives you want, but america doesn't

2. hezbollah is more concerned about israel than anything else. while al qaeda is more concerned about the US. i think america has its own priorities

3. you may hope bush will attack just for uranium enrichment. but it won't happen. if israel is that concerned, it should bomb iran itself, and face the consequences itself. it's not like you don't have a capable airforce

 

[G-Man]

because the diplomatic cost is too high. i already stated that.

What diplomatic cost? Who will defend Iran? North Korea?

also, if it's that easy, why won't israel send bombers itself? does it want the benefit without the cost?

Because Israel doesn't have the capabilities of the USAF.

are you talking about the current situation or are you talking about the future? i'm talking about what the US will realistically do now, not in your hypothetical future scenario

I'm talking about what the US will do if it would allow Iran to gain nukes and will then be attacked by hezbollah.

1. there's no reason they would attack iran now either. they can, but there's no incentive. you may have all the incentives you want, but america doesn't

2. hezbollah is more concerned about israel than anything else. while al qaeda is more concerned about the US. i think america has its own priorities

3. you may hope bush will attack just for uranium enrichment. but it won't happen. if israel is that concerned, it should bomb iran itself, and face the consequences itself. it's not like you don't have a capable airforce

1. The US had all the reasons in the world to know about the sep 11th attackers. Israel had no interests in telling the US about them. Yet we did so anyway. That's how an alliance works - you sometimes do things because they're for the good of your ally.
2. That's a very naive way to treat an organization that killed and hijacked hundreds of Americans, had commited the biggest anti American terror attacks untill september 11th, had acted in America more than once and is reported to have cells in northern America.
3. As President Bush said in an address to Congress on September 20, 2001, "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."
-http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/

As to Israel, we'll attack their nuclear facilities as soon as we'll get our shipment of long range stealth bombers You don't really think that it would make any difference? It's not like an Israeli attack can take place without American knowledge and support, and in any case our enemies view the two countries as one body.

 

[Nobody]

Israel and the US are allies

How many troops did israel send to korea? how many troops did israel send to vietnam? how many troops did israel send to Iraq? how many troops did israel send to afganistan? how many troops did israel send to kosovo? how many troops did israel send to second iraq war?

If its because israel has a small military by conpassion, so does australia, so does new zealand, so does south korea. (not that nz is a american ally, but it was during korea/vietnam and we supported the us seince then because we are freinds)

 

[Tassadar]

China backing Iran is about the best news we can hear, it will counter weight USA-israel egemony in the area. A new power is born to counter the judeo-christian fanatic. Thats too funny, TNWO is not coming soon.

 

[CivArmy s. 1994]

I don't think US has enought troops to invade other countries and I don't belive other nations will fallow US again in more one insane war.
For what I read here I continue beliving many Americans don't have the ideal about what US does in the World (including against my national Brazil), these people don't have idea why other nations hate US and the worst part: they belive that US has the right to invade what they want (these insane preventine attacks).
Some one posted about fanatic religious leaders, Bush is not too longer to be a Fanatic Cristian, okay, until now he didn't order to "burn all muslins" or "burn the American enemies", wait a minute, he has already ordered the 2nd comand, just is missing the 1st one.
For now it is all, I'm really mad for what I read here, like someone said, democracy doesn't work (j/k)

 

[G-Man]

How many troops did israel send to korea? how many troops did israel send to vietnam? how many troops did israel send to Iraq? how many troops did israel send to afganistan? how many troops did israel send to kosovo? how many troops did israel send to second iraq war?

Israel offered to send troops to Korea and had, appearantly, sent special ops to Iraq. It also wanted to participate in the first gulf war. How many soldiers did the US send to Israel's wars?

If its because israel has a small military by conpassion, so does australia, so does new zealand, so does south korea. (not that nz is a american ally, but it was during korea/vietnam and we supported the us seince then because we are freinds)

It's because Israel's army is busy fighting elsewere. Australia, New Zealand and South Korea don't have the Palestinian terrorists to try and stop.

 

[silver 2039]

Isreal also shares intel with the US. Mossad is probaly the best intelligence agency in the world.

 

[King Alexander]

All I see is that almost all half of Asia(a huge territory) is being invaded and conquered,
thousands of average civilians who have nothing to do with terrorism are killed and nobody seems to care,
thousands of average civilians die due to simple diceases from embargos' and even more die from the toxic and radiated depleted uranium bombs and those substances go to the water and food and the people drink and eat it,
in Iraq war we heard the UNHEARD! that "small" nuclear bombs are being developed and they will be used in the "war for terror" along with the radiation that those bombs will cause to the area that they'll been dropped.

Still, the main excuse is that we want to avoid other countries of having nuclear weapons: what an hypocricy is this when "small" nuclear bombs will be dropped from now on, and depleted uranium bombs cause various and lethal froms of cancer to the people that lived/live there.

Things have gone out of control because "countries who aren't our allies are against us", no one can be neutral and live in peace, as it seems.

I must say that the Cold War days were much safer than the times we live, there was a balance. Every country that hasn't a superpower status(except 3) are in danger to be invaded at any time now or in the future.

Maybe we need opposing superpowers so there's a balance in the world.

@Tassadar: what is "TNWO"?