http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/pages/sg_office.html The office of Sec. Gen .
I think the the rpoblem is that you consider a war illegal if waging the wara was an abuse of Presidential power. Our congress, gave Bush authority to use force so in that sense it was legal regardless of how or why that authority was granted. We can try to do something about ** how**the president got everyone’s support but he has a conressional resolution saying that he can use force.
I think that the posters claiming that the war was illegal are claiming that it was illegal because there is no international recognition of a legitimate basis for waging the war so maybe illegitimate war is more appropriate than illegal war. You can’t wave the U.N. resolution in the air because invasion requires the sanstion of the U.N security council (we weren’t going to the aid of an ally state as we were in Vietnam or Korea). All the other rationale for going to war (I believe) have been thoroughly debunked (no 9/11 connection and no imminent threat of WMD). There is nothing that I can identify in the Bush doctrine that would excuse the invasion under international law.
Don’t get me wrong, I think a nuclear Iran is a bad idea. Heck, I think that nuclear proliferation of any sort if a bad idea, but especially so with countries that have expressed a desire for new world order. However, you seem to have bought the Bush Doctrine hook line and sinker.
Heh.
What specific parts of my statement do you disagree with?
Easier to say you swallowed the Bush doctorine ( :dubious: ), hook line and sinker than to go into those pesky details Finn.
-XT
I would add that using that logic we would have the right to arm ourselves with terrorists to defend against other terrorist nations. This isn’t the cold war when a nuclear devise was delivered in a warhead on an ICBM. It had a return address. That won’t be the case if Iran uses even a small percentage of the latest recruits for suicide strikes.
Imagine 20 suitcase nukes in the United States in the following cities:
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Houston
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Antonio
San Diego
Dallas
San Jose
Detroit
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
San Francisco
Columbus
Austin
Memphis
Baltimore
Fort Worth
If the economic damage from hitting the WTC was a half trillion dollars imagine what it would be given the scenario above. Not possible? How possible would it be for a nomadic chief in Afghanistan to take down the WTC, attack the seat of military power in the US, ground every aircraft in the country and almost destroy either the White House or Congress. It’s beyond crazy. To top off the insane scenario it cost the assailants NOTHING. The airline tickets were paid for with credit cards and the ammunition was American based airlines.
Iran represents an evolution in terrorism. They can provide the funding AND the equipment necessary to carry out an exponentially larger attack. Their “government” consists of religiously approved politicians who have called for the destruction of Israel and death to America. The ruling party is calling for this durring political session, not a backroom filled with nutjobs. They ARE the nutjobs. And while I doubt all the 53,000 Iranian suicide volunteers would kill themselves I’m pretty confident that 20 of them would.
The idea of accepting the right of Iran to possess nuclear weapons should be prefaced on both the legitimacy of the government and the sanity of it’s rulers.
:rolleyes: Raving right wing paranoia. They could have sent suicide bombers against us at any time, but they haven’t. The “crazyness” of the Iranian leadership is much exaggerated, or they would have long ago.
Of course by that standard America should be stripped of our nukes . . . except no one has the power. If America has the right to nukes, then so does Iran. As well, I consider Iran less likely to use them. They don’t have our conviction of invincibility.
I exagerated nothing. 9/11 happened, Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, Iranian politicians have called for the destruction of both Israel and the United States, and Iran sponsors terrorists. Yes, they can send suicide bombers against us at any time. That was my point.
Iran is less likely to use them? O K . Have a good day.
Iran has a right to nukes beause no one has the power to take them from the US? Double standard much?
I didn’t realize I had disagreed with anything you said. I disagree with plenty of things but if you isolate the Iran + Nukes issue (or any nuclear proliferation at all), I think we’re on the same side.
I just don’t know how we could stop them. I don’t think that we have the right to invade another country that has never sponsored any terrorist activity against the US (outside of retaliation for US involvement in Iran (like supporting the Shah)). If they withdraw from the NNPT, we don’t even have the right to tell them not to make nukes, we have to ask them do we?
I was pointing out America’s double standard.
Certainly we COULD stop them…if we chose too. The Euro’s could probably stop them as well if THEY chose too…so could Israel for that matter.
We wouldn’t need to invade them to stop their program either…though I don’t know what difference it makes if they have or have not sponsored terrorism against the US wrt stopping their nuclear program. Or what difference it makes if they are or are not still in the NNP treaty for that matter. Its a matter of if Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a direct threat to US (and other nations) interests…and it clearly is, just due to their location alone (and leaving aside how crazy they may or may not be, or their designs on power in the region, possible hostile motives towards neighbors like Saudi or Israel, or antipathy toward the US).
Kind of a moot point don’t you think, if they don’t withdraw but violate it anyway? Also, we do rather have options if they do or don’t withdraw…whether we use those options or not is another debate/question.
-XT
Iran has not supported terrorism against the U.S. (the Iran hostage crisis was a different story). Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia read the background section. We are experiencing the results of 50 years of foreign policy that was driven by the cold war. We probably had to do what we did but can you really blame them for being pissed off at us? The question is what do we do now?
Did we sign the NNTP and agree to not pursue nuclear weapons (and reap the rewards of course) and I missed it?? Could you provide a cite for this to fight my ignorance Der?? Thanks in advance…
-XT
I don’t know what you are suggesting… pre-emptive nuking?
Part of the justification that I have read in this thread for interfering with Iran’s development of nukes (moreso than other countries) is that they sponsor terrorists and that means that they are likely to nuke us. I assume they are talking about Hezbollah and Hamas. Only 6 out of the nearly 200 countries in the world consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization (Israel, USA, UK, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands), a similar list exists for Hamas. But all that aside, how much of that terrorist activity (and both organizations certainly engage in what we would call terrorist activity) is directed at the USA? Certainly some but is it nearly enough to conclude that Iran would nuke us?
That’s like saying Hitler wasn’t a threat to England because he invaded Poland. Iran sponsers terrorist activities against one of our strongets allies, Israel. Do you not understand the danger of a political system that actively supports arming a proxy army within Lebanon? A nation whose politicians shout “death to America” during parliamentary session is not stable. A nation that recruits suicide squads is not stable.
There is no debate here regarding the combination of governments who sponsor terrorism and nuclear weapons.
You said the US should be stripped of nukes but no one has the power to. The US does have the power to stop Iran from having nukes (if we decide to use it) but no one should “strip” them of nukes even if they have the power. I don’t see the corelation of your double standard and the one you think the US has.
Had you bothered reading my other posts, you would know that I’m not suggesting using nukes. Why would we need too? Do you really not realize the US has military capabilities outside of our nuclear arsenel?
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the only threat Iran (or one of its proxies) could pose to the US is if they nuked one of our cities. As serious as that may be (and I don’t totally discount it), I’d rate that as less of a threat than Iran using its nuke in the ME somewhere…or in them using their nuke for blackmail, or to increase their power and influence in the region. Leaving aside Iran’s having signed the NNPT, Iran with a nuclear weapon is a direct threat to US INTERESTS in the Middle East. Its a direct threat to EUROPEANS INTERESTS in the Middle East as well…or hadn’t you noticed the Euro’s flailing attempts to head off Iran going forward with its nuclear program?
In short, Iran nuking us is not the main worry…its pretty far down on the list in fact, IMHO. Its not why the Euro’s are worried. Its not why its neighbors are alarmed. A nuclear armed and fanatical Iran in proximity to the worlds oil reserves IS somewhat of a worry though. A nuclear armed Iran with a chip on its shoulder wrt a nuclear armed Israel is a bit of a bother too. A Shi’ite dominated religious theocracy that is nuclear armed in proximity to an unstable, but Shi’ite majority Iraq is a bit of a worry as well. A nuclear armed Iran, dominated by Shi’ite theocracy and in proximity to the Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia is also a bit troubling.
-XT
So would you say that you too have, in your opinion, have " bought the Bush Doctrine hook line and sinker?"
If not, why not? If we agree, where do you see a difference? And, more to the point, where do you disagree and/or see me as having somehow gone wrong? Or were you saying that “[buying] the Bush Doctrine hook line and sinker” is a good thing?
Tell that to the 241 Marines blown to pieces or crushed to death in their barracks in Beruit in 1983.
Tell that to the staff of the US embassy who were killed in Beruit in 1983.
Tell that to the passangers aboard TWA Flight 847 in 1985.
Tell that to westerners kidnapped in Lebanon during the 1980’s, including numerous Americans…
Hezbollah has commited nearly 200 attacks since 1982. Were those all in retaliation for US involvement in Iran?
Of course we do. Just because something isn’t expressly forbidden by treaty doesn’t mean that we have to allow it. Moreoever, as Iran’s program has been going on for about 18 years now, it looks doubtful that they have any real intention of withdrawing from the NNPT before they produce (more) plutonium.
Nope. We should certainly negotiate up until we reach the wire. But right before Iran can get nukes, then, IMO, negotiation is at an end. If one of the world’s largest sponsors of international terrorism wants nukes, and can’t be persuaded to give up those ambitions, then something needs to be done to stop them.
The argument was that Iran should not be allowed to have nukes because they have crazy leaders. America has crazy leaders. Therefore, if Iran should not have nukes, then America should lose it’s nukes. Simple.