Iran next? Germany and the US disagree

[Brother None]

'Invasion'? Nope. Military options? Hell fucking yes. Hitting Natzan, Arak and Bushehr is a possibility. That is why Gethard is flatly wrong and clearly pandering to his inane constittuency.

True that. But that's a troubled path, too, which will piss off a lot of people, and might not be that efficient.

o rly?

Yes rly. Stand high and mighty as much as you want, but the USA has been losing backbone since WW II. By this point you're little better than the EU.

Though WW II, Korea and Vietnam are only partially relevant to it. It's the whole "clean war" thing that was the deathblow to the USA's military capability. See, I don't care if you have the strongest army in the world, you can't expect to get anywhere if you're a democracy in which the populace have been hypnotized to expect wars to be quick and with few casualties.

Yeah, I'm sure China and Russia would go to war to help Iran.

Hardly relevant. Even if Germany turns a-recalcitrant, you can't go through the UN without Russia and China, and enough countries still believe in the UN not to back a non-UN war.

As for Gerhard: think for a second, John. Gerhard is a democratically chosen prime minister. If his people elected him for being anti-American, HE SHOULD BLOODY WELL BE ANTI-AMERICAN. Hello, welcome to democracy.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

One has to wonder if 'Star Wars' will lead to an ion cannon in the near future.....



Anyways, according to your argument Max, we should be in fact pressing Iran on this. The development of nuclear weapons by a religious-controlled state is NOT in any way wise or particularly encouraging for the future. Given a large, unhappy segment of students and children, a conservative government, cleric-controlled cabinet, violation of human rights (yes smartass, say the United States and show you have half a wit), as well as potential for another 'revolution', and the development of nuclear arms suddenly doesn't seem so sane. What will they use them for? Perhaps maybe to hold as a cudgel over Israel and by proxy, the United States?

Letting Iran self-implode in the future, AFTER having developed a nuclear program is absurd. I don't say we should invade, but I agree with CCR. Level the fucking nuclear development plants, or let Israel do it. Anything less is allowing ourselves and the world to get fucked over in the future.

 

[John Uskglass]

True that. But that's a troubled path, too, which will piss off a lot of people, and might not be that efficient.

It's kind of hard to produce Nuclear wepons when your facilities are glowing craters in the ground.

Yes rly. Stand high and mighty as much as you want, but the USA has been losing backbone since WW II. By this point you're little better than the EU.

The EU will never go to war with anybody, ever, under any circumstances.

Though WW II, Korea and Vietnam are only partially relevant to it. It's the whole "clean war" thing that was the deathblow to the USA's military capability. See, I don't care if you have the strongest army in the world, you can't expect to get anywhere if you're a democracy in which the populace have been hypnotized to expect wars to be quick and with few casualties.

True dat. But things can change. A populace can ultimatley realize that war is not easy or quick.

Hardly relevant. Even if Germany turns a-recalcitrant, you can't go through the UN without Russia and China, and enough countries still believe in the UN not to back a non-UN war.

I care about the UNSC as much as I care about men's fashion, so does the US Gov and most of the US public.

As for Gerhard: think for a second, John. Gerhard is a democratically chosen prime minister. If his people elected him for being anti-American, HE SHOULD BLOODY WELL BE ANTI-AMERICAN. Hello, welcome to democracy.

You know who else was democratically elected? HITLER.

Sure, he was democratically elected because of his anti-American spiel, but that does not change the fact that that is a cheap tactic and he's a bad leader.

 

[calculon000]

You know who else was democratically elected? HITLER.

Oh CCR, what won't you say?

 

[John Uskglass]

Oh CCR, what won't you say?

Anything that is against God, Teddy Roosevelt or brunettes.


Unless they are Asian brunettes.

 

[Brother None]

It's kind of hard to produce Nuclear wepons when your facilities are glowing craters in the ground.

Oh, ok, so you want to blow up their running nuclear power plants?

What's next on your grand plan, broadcasting a show where Americans pee on Qu'urans in an effort to win hearts and minds?

The EU will never go to war with anybody, ever, under any circumstances.

Duh. The EU is not a country, it is not capable of declaring or going to war because it is not that kind of entity.

True dat. But things can change. A populace can ultimatley realize that war is not easy or quick.

Yeah. Or not. The US doesn't have a lot of resolve.

Then again, there's nothing directly threatening the existence of the US. That tends to make quite a difference.

I care about the UNSC as much as I care about men's fashion, so does the US Gov and most of the US public.

What you care about and what the US cares about is completely irrelevant, as you are incapable of taking on all your self-declared "enemies" yourselves. Disliking the UN is not going to make the problem go away. In fact, considering what the US wants to do it desperately needs the UN. Bush's failure to win 'em over is probably one of the saddest things in his reign

You know who else was democratically elected? HITLER.

No. Hitler was not democratically elected for the office that he finally assumed.

Besides which, we're all constitutional democracies. Hitler was pretty unconstitutional, Gerhard is not.

Sure, he was democratically elected because of his anti-American spiel, but that does not change the fact that that is a cheap tactic and he's a bad leader.

Really? What should he do? Ignore the will of the people and slavishly follow America? Why? Because that's what you want?

Moments like these make me feel like US citizens have the least grasp of democracy of all civilized countries.

 

[Member of Khans]

John mentioned Hitler, John lost.

 

[Max Demian]

Just how much bullshit must we take from the US? India defied the nuclear club and went ahead to build it's own bomb. It refused to sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty, yet the US was perfectly O.K. with this. In fact as a reward for not paying attention to any nuclear treaties they rewarded them with advance nuclear power plant technologies as well. This is just another good example of American double standard and hypocrisy. Says a lot about principles, doesn't it?
It’s quite disputable if the Israelis can take out their nuclear reactor on their own, without the aid of US forces. The best Israel has are F-15s and F-18s. It’s a long way there and back. They’ll certainly have to refuel in mid-air, and be exposed for a long time to hostile fire…stealth bombers would be a far better choice. Even if they were successful, it’s reasonable to expect that Iran would furiously retaliate with it’s arsenal of ballistic missiles on Tel Aviv and U.S. bases in the Gulf. Just how many of a few hundred missiles equiped with cluster bombs would they be able to shoot down do you think? (Considering how effective the Patriot system was against the short range and consequently much slower traveling Scuds, I'd say very few)

 

[John Uskglass]

Oh, ok, so you want to blow up their running nuclear power plants?

What's next on your grand plan, broadcasting a show where Americans pee on Qu'urans in an effort to win hearts and minds?

Testing facilities do not a power plant make, nor does it equal an Iranian Chernobyl.

And it should be an option. Is it a favorble one? No. Do I want to end up with a generation of freaky Iranian babies? No. I want more Iranians in America and more loose Iranian women, not a lot of dead ones.

Duh. The EU is not a country, it is not capable of declaring or going to war because it is not that kind of entity.

Actually, I'd extend it to most of the individual continental nations. I don't see a non-Sarkozy France or a SPD run Germany declaring war for any reason, be it a justifiable war or not, even if it where to save millions of innocent lives.

Yeah. Or not. The US doesn't have a lot of resolve.

You may be right, but I seriously doubt the Iraq war will create the kind of widespread lunacy that Vietnam did: we don't have a fraction of the casualties and we are not supporting an authoritarian government.

Then again, there's nothing directly threatening the existence of the US. That tends to make quite a difference.

Mebbe. Then again, Americans realize that Iraq has at the very least become a front on the War on Islamic Extremism, and that threatens quite a bit.

What you care about and what the US cares about is completely irrelevant, as you are incapable of taking on all your self-declared "enemies" yourselves. Disliking the UN is not going to make the problem go away. In fact, considering what the US wants to do it desperately needs the UN. Bush's failure to win 'em over is probably one of the saddest things in his reign

The UNSC has never solved anything, ever, in it's entire fucking history. It's fucked up Yugoslavia, it fucked up Somalia, the jobs in Mozambique and El Salvador could have been done by troops who tend not to rape children or promote child sex slavery and the Suez Crisis avoided a war that would come later. What is needed is talks between Japan, the EU and the USA on what to do about this, and if this fails seek military action to either decapitate the regiem or destroy it's capacity to make WMD.

Really? What should he do? Ignore the will of the people and slavishly follow America? Why? Because that's what you want?

No, of course not, that's moronic. I want governments that share the US's goals of worldwide democracy and an end to Islamic Extremism rather then justifying it's rascism and total lack of interest in the lives of others in the name of 'multiculturalism' and keeping world wide diversity.

Moments like these make me feel like US citizens have the least grasp of democracy of all civilized countries.

If we wanted puppet states, you would be a puppet states. We want allies, not a Warsaw Pact.

 

[Bradylama]

Just how much bullshit must we take from the US? India defied the nuclear club and went ahead to build it's own bomb. It refused to sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty, yet the US was perfectly O.K. with this. In fact as a reward for not paying attention to any nuclear treaties they rewarded them with advance nuclear power plant technologies as well.

India is also a stable democracy, and a key strategic ally in South Asia. If India has nukes then they can better resist Chinese pressures, having a nuclear counter.

You honestly want Iran, an Islamo-fascist theocracy, to possess nuclear weapons, which they could possibly use against Israel (a nuclear power that will NOT hesitate to irradiate the entire Middle East) or the United States. The latter, being an even bigger problem, because the Iranians would deliver the warhead in a method that cannot be easily traced back to them. Iran has actually performed wargame scenarios in the Caspian sea where a scud launched from a merchant vessel strikes a coastal target.

 

[Member of Khans]

I want governments that share the US's goals of worldwide democracy and an end to Islamic Extremism rather then justifying it's rascism and total lack of interest in the lives of others in the name of 'multiculturalism' and keeping world wide diversity.

Dude, I want governments that share the <s>US's</s> commonsense goals of worldwide democracy and an end to Islamic Extremism rather then justifying it's ra<s>s</s>cism and total lack of interest in the lives of others. This has to happen in the name of 'multiculturalism' and keeping world wide diversity.

See? Our positions aren't that different.

 

[Sovz]

If we wanted puppet states, you would be a puppet states. We want allies, not a Warsaw Pact.

Ehh... reality check: you already have a bunch of puppet states:
Panama (1903-1968) – The appointed Governor of the Panama Canal Zone was said to have more power than the elected head of state.
Haiti (1915-1934 and 2004-present).
Dominican Republic (1916-1924 and 1965-1978).
Republic of Korea (1948-present).
Republic of Vietnam (1954-1975).
Cambodia (1970-1975) - The convened National Assembly deposed Norodom Sihanouk in favor of the pro-US Prime Minister Lon Nol.
Grenada (1983-1984) – Interim government led by Sir Nicholas Brathwaite.
Afghanistan (2001-present) after the US military invasion in 2001
Great Britain (1997 – present)

 

[John Uskglass]

Haiti (1915-1934 and 2004-present).

Grade-A stupidity. Aristide was an awful ruler and Haiti is one of the worst nations in the world. It needs American help.

Republic of Korea (1948-present).

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Just because it gave troops in Iraq does not make it a fucking puppet. That's absolutley insane.

Great Britain (1997 – present)

A fucking joke?

I would like to point out that America never tried to get rid of European leaders we did'nt like, and we disliked qutie a few. The Warsaw Pact's reaction to something like Gaulism would have been Soviet tanks going through Paris in a month.

 

[Brother None]

Testing facilities do not a power plant make

No, but how exactly would you intend to stop them without blowing up the power plant?

Hell, they could just start constructing bombs right next to the bloody power plant.

Actually, I'd extend it to most of the individual continental nations. I don't see a non-Sarkozy France or a SPD run Germany declaring war for any reason, be it a justifiable war or not, even if it where to save millions of innocent lives.

Yeah, 'cause France and Germany are most of continental Europe

Hell, out of the EU's current 5 leading nations, 3 originally went along with Iraq, though one stepped back later.

You may be right, but I seriously doubt the Iraq war will create the kind of widespread lunacy that Vietnam did: we don't have a fraction of the casualties and we are not supporting an authoritarian government.

It won't, I wasn't arguing that, I was arguing the possibility of full-scale war against yet another islamic nation.

Mebbe. Then again, Americans realize that Iraq has at the very least become a front on the War on Islamic Extremism, and that threatens quite a bit.

No, no it doesn't. "Islamic Extremism" adopted by a bunch of lunatic does not threaten the very fundaments of our civilization, unless we, like the US, cave in and sacrifice a lot of what sets us apart to fight them.

The UNSC has never solved anything, ever, in it's entire fucking history. It's fucked up Yugoslavia, it fucked up Somalia, the jobs in Mozambique and El Salvador could have been done by troops who tend not to rape children or promote child sex slavery and the Suez Crisis avoided a war that would come later. What is needed is talks between Japan, the EU and the USA on what to do about this, and if this fails seek military action to either decapitate the regiem or destroy it's capacity to make WMD.

Why in Frith's name should Japan be involved? 'cause they're your buddies?

Also, you might remember the UNSC has stamped and executed two major wars in its history. The Gulf War and the Korean War. Your argument that it is incapable of being used as an instrument of a joint war effort is retarded, it simply depends on who is pulling the policial strings. Bush's shoving isn't going to solve anything

Remember the UNSC also supported Afghanistan

You can stand on your head arguing about how much the UN sucks all day. It doesn't matter, it doesn't make them any less necessary for the "WoT"

I want governments that share the US's goals of worldwide democracy and an end to Islamic Extremism rather then justifying it's rascism and total lack of interest in the lives of others in the name of 'multiculturalism' and keeping world wide diversity.

What you want is irrelevant, thankfully you're not in charge of German politics.

Germany shares your goals, I bet. They don't like Islamic extremism either and would also vaguely wish for worldwide democracy. Unlike the US, though, they're not retards going at it a gung-ho fashion.

If we wanted puppet states, you would be a puppet states. We want allies, not a Warsaw Pact.

You have puppet states. There was nothing morally stopping the US from turning Europe into a puppet continent, I think they realised the effort was not worth it since we're like-minded enough anyway.

And that doesn't change the fact that you suck at democracy.

India is also a stable democracy, and a key strategic ally in South Asia. If India has nukes then they can better resist Chinese pressures, having a nuclear counter.

India is a democracy, but it is not stable, it is a dangerous place with violently disputed territories and a history of ultraviolent strife between its religious groupings.

But I don't mind India too much, Pakistan and Israel having nukes is worse, since they're both unstable semi-democracies.

That said, the problem with Bush breaking the NPT solo lies not in the fact that India now has nukes, it lies in the fact that the NPT was a unified act backed by all the nuclear powers and many other world-powers designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Now that the US has broken it, Japan and South-Korea will start clamoring for nukes. And then other countries will follow. And there'll be nothing to stop them, because the US has shown itself to be hypocritical and will be unable to unify the nuclear powers under its flag for a similar deal

It's idiotic

 

[4too]

Ready Or Not

Ready Or Not





J.U.:

... Why would one of the top oil producing nations in the world, with if anything an excess of the stuff, need to have something as incredibly unprofitable as nuclear power? ....

..something as incredibly unprofitable as nuclear power ..

Price per barrel , what 67 and rising? Soon, maybe reading by -Whale- Oil, or 'moonshine' alcohol, wicks.
Price rising, shortage on the horizon, maybe this is back handed proof that Iraq's invasion wasn't for 'oil'. Other commodity news, since Afghanistan has returned to growing poppies, we will find the street price of heroine stabilizing. But I digress.

That ""Energy Bill"" that just passed included "guarantee's "" for American corporations that will build nuke plants in the U.S. They won't "lose' any money even if the plants are behind schedule, or maybe even if they never generate a kilowatt.

Ready or not , six are proposed. Six freebies.

The FEAR of losing (political) power, by, losing 'electrical' power to run this nation
has inspired another bold venture in state - crony - capitalism.

Some call it socialism, or desperation, but recall the need for railroads was so great, in the 19th Century, that this transportation industry was federally subsidized.
Any prairie farmer, from that period, might tell how "fair" the railroads were to agriculture. The oppression was enough to elect SOCIALISTS in Prairie States ... Think the electric utlities will be "fair" to us? But I've digressed.

Americans building nuke plants. Mediocre financial record there, small "l' - losers, big B Billions, ... , can't we out source that? French, Japanese, Iranian. no not Iranian ... it's Haliburton, the moral equivalent of crony 'capo'-ism, or we freeze in the dark America .... well, we may glow as we freeze ...But I've digressed.

As the price of energy rises, "profit" and nuclear power plants will march to a NEO - ... creative accounting. More "New Age", air headed, wishful spinning to pump up the stock price and further this 'Buddhist' world view, zen engineering, --- illusionary --- economics.
Or was the stock market that Bush want's our retirement savings to bolster always ""buyer beware"'? ... It might be whenever individual funded ponsey schemes vaporize ... but I digress.

Why a nuclear Iran?

IF nuke plants are so f-ing - safe - these days, safe enough to construct on the fault lines of America. Why shouldn't Iran milk a 'win win' situation by selling oil for dollars, NOW, and when the dollar collapses for Euros and yen? It's modest electrical needs will be powered, now and into the future, by
the same energy source as the politicians in Washington say is NOW O.K. for the U.S.A. True to the ethos of 'Management By Crisis', the U.S. pol's will never plan ahead for this nation. Only drama wins attention, and 51% of 40% of the eligible votes in the Land of Reality TV.

Why punish Iran for planning ahead? Jealous?

Bush's issue isn't about dictators having A-bombs. Pakistan has Bush sanctioned A-bombs. The issue is ISLAMIC Iran , Israel hating, piss on the U.S. embassy, bomb the Marine Barracks, 400 plus days of media whore feeding hostage "reality TV" Iran, that Iran developing the technological base to build A-bombs, the ticket to adult nation status, is ANOTHER line in the sand for this Administration.

Forgetting Israeli security links here. Ignore nuclear brinksmanship in the Holy Land. We can, as Americans, go unconscious about Israel, it' may be a property of our fluorinated water .... or watching Reality TV ... or both ...

For some reason, it's 'better' that the A-bomb that El Quida - may - use be Pakistani, ex-Soviet, or fished from the sea, U.S. Cold War Surplus.

For some reason, the planet NEEDS an Iran that can be bullied by Bush ....

Or is this 'good cop, bad cop' intimidation 'therapy'?

It may be easier to bully nation states, particularly nation states that harbor non state entities, if they don't have A-bombs, but don't quote me ... Maybe Pakistan would have found Bin Laden, if it wasn't doing a nuclear gesticulation at India .... But I've digressed.

Oh. Ya. U.S. ground forces are 'busy' right now.

No fall back if there is a misunderstanding, a miss communication.

Bush MUST be pushy, or CLEAR, about his Administration's stand against independent nuclear development in Iran.

No. ifs' or maybes'.

Kuwait may have been invaded because of Bush Senior's "if and maybes'"....

So what ever happens, there won't be any "ifs' and maybes'""....

Ready or not, how's that for certainty ...





4too

 

[Maphusio]

Holy Christ ... this has become SO mind boggling... Hell you go away for a few days to a nice vacation spot in Texas come back and the mess that you left has become considerably bigger... Who would have thunk it eh?

4too, lol you should speech write for Michael Moore. Not that I don’t agree with what you say... It has so much personality to it a well-written post.

 

[Bradylama]

Unfortunately for Moore, 4too's writing style doesn't translate well for the terminally gullible.

 

[Zaij]

Mebbe. Then again, Americans realize that Iraq has at the very least become a front on the War on Islamic Extremism, and that threatens quite a bit.

Islamic Extremism? I thought the Bush was claiming he was fighting terrorists.

 

[Bradylama]

It's unclear what it is, exactly, that we're supposed to be fighting. It was the War on Extremism for a while, but now I don't know.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

And it should be an option. Is it a favorble one? No. Do I want to end up with a generation of freaky Iranian babies? No. I want more Iranians in America and more loose Iranian women, not a lot of dead ones.

Unlikely. Get your own bitches.

Actually, I'd extend it to most of the individual continental nations. I don't see a non-Sarkozy France or a SPD run Germany declaring war for any reason, be it a justifiable war or not, even if it where to save millions of innocent lives.

Neither does America. Declare wars to save lives, that is.

You may be right, but I seriously doubt the Iraq war will create the kind of widespread lunacy that Vietnam did: we don't have a fraction of the casualties and we are not supporting an authoritarian government.

Yeah, BTW, good luck with making a stable, non-authoritarian government there.

Mebbe. Then again, Americans realize that Iraq has at the very least become a front on the War on Islamic Extremism, and that threatens quite a bit.

Proof? There were no Islamic terrorists before you got there. Where is Al Zarqawi from, BTW?

No, of course not, that's moronic. I want governments that share the US's goals of worldwide democracy and an end to Islamic Extremism rather then justifying it's rascism and total lack of interest in the lives of others in the name of 'multiculturalism' and keeping world wide diversity.

What if they don't? You'll make them do it? What about China and Pakistan?