Diplomacy has failed
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
Willfully failed, as neither China nor Russia back sanctions. Iran is far too good a customer. I seriously doubt the EU will back the US for long in any sanctions.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
International diplomacy was attempted and it failed.
Oh, right. "Stop or we'll sanction you! Well, we still need your oil, so no sanctions there. But you'll have to find somewhere else to sell your carpets!" Yeah, i'd be shaking in my boots if i was them... :rolleyes:
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
When have "sanctions" ever worked.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
When have "sanctions" ever worked.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
Again, I'm asking what will work. I get annoyed by all the contrarians who oppose an action but have no alternative solution. Here's the situation: We have a terrorist state that has expressed a willingness to completely destroy Israel, has threatened America and is attacking coalition soldiers in Iraq on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. The United Nations has proven ineffective again (big surprise there) and diplomacy has failed. I would like to know what people believe we should do, not what we should not do. Do we strike their nuclear facilities militarily? Do we take out their government, Iraq style? Do we just allow them to have nuclear weapons and cross our fingers? Or is there another "solution"? I noticed that nobody has offered one in that past hour.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
Again, I'm asking what will work. I get annoyed by all the contrarians who oppose an action but have no alternative solution. Here's the situation: We have a terrorist state that has expressed a willingness to completely destroy Israel, has threatened America and is attacking coalition soldiers in Iraq on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. The United Nations has proven ineffective again (big surprise there) and diplomacy has failed. I would like to know what people believe we should do, not what we should not do. Do we strike their nuclear facilities militarily? Do we take out their government, Iraq style? Do we just allow them to have nuclear weapons and cross our fingers? Or is there another "solution"? I noticed that nobody has offered one in that past hour.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
Again, I'm asking what will work. I get annoyed by all the contrarians who oppose an action but have no alternative solution. Here's the situation: We have a terrorist state that has expressed a willingness to completely destroy Israel, has threatened America and is attacking coalition soldiers in Iraq on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. The United Nations has proven ineffective again (big surprise there) and diplomacy has failed. I would like to know what people believe we should do, not what we should not do. Do we strike their nuclear facilities militarily? Do we take out their government, Iraq style? Do we just allow them to have nuclear weapons and cross our fingers? Or is there another "solution"? I noticed that nobody has offered one in that past hour.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
Israel will act alone on this one even if we do not attempt to give it the veneer of international approval. Destabalising the regime by allowing an independent Kurdistan and formatting the Sunni / Shi'a divide by pulling quickly out of southern Iraq is one plan. Any direct attacks on the regime short of complete destruction will only strengthen them. That is preferable to them having nukes though.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
Again, I'm asking what will work. I get annoyed by all the contrarians who oppose an action but have no alternative solution. Here's the situation: We have a terrorist state that has expressed a willingness to completely destroy Israel, has threatened America and is attacking coalition soldiers in Iraq on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. The United Nations has proven ineffective again (big surprise there) and diplomacy has failed. I would like to know what people believe we should do, not what we should not do. Do we strike their nuclear facilities militarily? Do we take out their government, Iraq style? Do we just allow them to have nuclear weapons and cross our fingers? Or is there another "solution"? I noticed that nobody has offered one in that past hour.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
Again, I'm asking what will work.
Nothing. Yeah, it's negative. So we send Condi over there, let 'er buddy up to ol' Mahmoud, tell 'im, "look, we realize you want this tech, it's a matter of national pride and personal power, it's not something you're gonna give up on. But we'd sure hate to see anyone get into trouble - how 'bout you hire some nice US companies with lots of experience building and running such facilities? We'll even cut you a deal..." :shrug: At least then, when we end up having to turn the whole region into glass it won't look like it's what we wanted all along...
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
I say they better get ready for some Libya-style lovin'.
Josh: So you have been married twice? You must have been young the first time around. Christian: Yeah, we were young and stupid. I was young, and she was...
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
Iran is legally authorized to enrich uranium as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As a special signatory to the treaty, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure Iran receives full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Any attempt by the U.S. to prevent Iran from exercising its treaty rights is a violation of the treaty. The next step should be referral of the U.S. to the Security Council for possible sanctions or other punitive measures as specified under the treaty.
-
I don't know how to resolve this. What is your real world viable solution?
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
I don't know how to resolve this.
Why not? You have a lot to say about Iraq. you're a good example of someone who complains about everything without providing anything of substance.
dennisd45 wrote:
What is your real world viable solution?
Tactical bunker buster nukes...But the militiary might have a better weapon, so they should get together and decide how many and what kind of bombs need to be dropped.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
Iran is legally authorized to enrich uranium as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As a special signatory to the treaty, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure Iran receives full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Any attempt by the U.S. to prevent Iran from exercising its treaty rights is a violation of the treaty. The next step should be referral of the U.S. to the Security Council for possible sanctions or other punitive measures as specified under the treaty.
That's self-contradictory. If Iran is "legally authorized" (treaties don't provide legal authorization, by the way), then why would they deserve "punitive measures"? And since Russia and China have expressed unwillingness to impose sanctions (and they therefore will not be imposed), what should be done?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
dennisd45 wrote:
I don't know how to resolve this.
Why not? You have a lot to say about Iraq. you're a good example of someone who complains about everything without providing anything of substance.
dennisd45 wrote:
What is your real world viable solution?
Tactical bunker buster nukes...But the militiary might have a better weapon, so they should get together and decide how many and what kind of bombs need to be dropped.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
You have a lot to say about Iraq. you're a good example of someone who complains about everything without providing anything of substance.
I don't have to provide a solution to Iraq. I didn't get us into this mess, Bush did. We shouldn't have gone in, and now that we have it is his responsibility to fix it.
espeir wrote:
Tactical bunker buster nukes...But the militiary might have a better weapon, so they should get together and decide how many and what kind of bombs need to be dropped
You haven't addressed the effectiveness or consequences of this action. Check this out, it might not be as easy or as cost free as you think http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm[^]
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
That's self-contradictory. If Iran is "legally authorized" (treaties don't provide legal authorization, by the way), then why would they deserve "punitive measures"? And since Russia and China have expressed unwillingness to impose sanctions (and they therefore will not be imposed), what should be done?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
That's self-contradictory. If Iran is "legally authorized" (treaties don't provide legal authorization, by the way), then why would they deserve "punitive measures"?
Ummm... re-read Ed's post. He thinks the US deserves the sanctions for attempting to stop Iran. :rolleyes:
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
-
espeir wrote:
You have a lot to say about Iraq. you're a good example of someone who complains about everything without providing anything of substance.
I don't have to provide a solution to Iraq. I didn't get us into this mess, Bush did. We shouldn't have gone in, and now that we have it is his responsibility to fix it.
espeir wrote:
Tactical bunker buster nukes...But the militiary might have a better weapon, so they should get together and decide how many and what kind of bombs need to be dropped
You haven't addressed the effectiveness or consequences of this action. Check this out, it might not be as easy or as cost free as you think http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm[^]
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
We shouldn't have gone in, and now that we have it is his responsibility to fix it.
But what did you say then? If not, did you offer a solution to Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions then? Or are you just complaining because you believe that inaction was the only appropriate action?
dennisd45 wrote:
You haven't addressed the effectiveness or consequences of this action. Check this out, it might not be as easy or as cost free as you think
I never said it would be cost-free, but destroying nuclear facilities would be strategically effective. The link you provided, for some reason, reticently states that Israel's attack on Iraq did not set back Iraq's nuclear ambitions, but it did set back their nuclear program (by about a decade). I don't expect a tactical strike to quell Iran's nuclear ambitions (they are a terrorist state, after all), but that's not really the goal. The only concern is America's actual ability to destroy the facilities from the air. From what I understand, Iran built the facilities far enough underground that bunker buster bombs wouldn't have an effect. But I don't know if they can withstand nuclear bunker busters (which release no radiation since they detonate far below the earth). Those don't need a direct hit since they cause an underground shockwave and could potentially destroy the facilities.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
espeir wrote:
That's self-contradictory. If Iran is "legally authorized" (treaties don't provide legal authorization, by the way), then why would they deserve "punitive measures"?
Ummm... re-read Ed's post. He thinks the US deserves the sanctions for attempting to stop Iran. :rolleyes:
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
:laugh: I just reread that. I thought he said referral "by" the US, not "of" the US. Man...America is crawling with people worse than Benedict Arnold. It's pretty sad. -- modified at 14:54 Thursday 31st August, 2006
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
dennisd45 wrote:
We shouldn't have gone in, and now that we have it is his responsibility to fix it.
But what did you say then? If not, did you offer a solution to Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions then? Or are you just complaining because you believe that inaction was the only appropriate action?
dennisd45 wrote:
You haven't addressed the effectiveness or consequences of this action. Check this out, it might not be as easy or as cost free as you think
I never said it would be cost-free, but destroying nuclear facilities would be strategically effective. The link you provided, for some reason, reticently states that Israel's attack on Iraq did not set back Iraq's nuclear ambitions, but it did set back their nuclear program (by about a decade). I don't expect a tactical strike to quell Iran's nuclear ambitions (they are a terrorist state, after all), but that's not really the goal. The only concern is America's actual ability to destroy the facilities from the air. From what I understand, Iran built the facilities far enough underground that bunker buster bombs wouldn't have an effect. But I don't know if they can withstand nuclear bunker busters (which release no radiation since they detonate far below the earth). Those don't need a direct hit since they cause an underground shockwave and could potentially destroy the facilities.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
But I don't know if they can withstand nuclear bunker busters (which release no radiation since they detonate far below the earth). Those don't need a direct hit since they cause an underground shockwave and could potentially destroy the facilities.
They don't have enough penetration to seriously limit the radiation released, and would most likely be ineffective against the targets. I suggest you search for RNEP and do a bit of reading. Here's something to get you started: Bombs Away?[^] Ahmadinejad is a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass -- seems to be a presidential trend these days -- and I think the threat of their nuclear program has been intentionally overstated. The potential cost of action at this point -- especially nuclear action (I can't believe sane people are actually suggesting that option) -- far outweighs the potential cost of inaction.
-
espeir wrote:
But I don't know if they can withstand nuclear bunker busters (which release no radiation since they detonate far below the earth). Those don't need a direct hit since they cause an underground shockwave and could potentially destroy the facilities.
They don't have enough penetration to seriously limit the radiation released, and would most likely be ineffective against the targets. I suggest you search for RNEP and do a bit of reading. Here's something to get you started: Bombs Away?[^] Ahmadinejad is a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass -- seems to be a presidential trend these days -- and I think the threat of their nuclear program has been intentionally overstated. The potential cost of action at this point -- especially nuclear action (I can't believe sane people are actually suggesting that option) -- far outweighs the potential cost of inaction.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They don't have enough penetration to seriously limit the radiation released, and would most likely be ineffective against the targets. I suggest you search for RNEP and do a bit of reading. Here's something to get you started: Bombs Away?[^]
According to your teenager-oriented article, they would destroy bunkers up to 1000 feet below the surface, so they most likely would be effective. You really should read your own links. Regardless, it looks like the program was unfortunately scrapped last year and replaced with one that uses conventional weapons that are as effective. I find it interesting that leftists always seem to say that new weapons programs will never work...like the now proven successful missile defense shield. I'm pretty confident that our military would be able to take out a few nuclear facilities.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Ahmadinejad is a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass -- seems to be a presidential trend these days -- and I think the threat of their nuclear program has been intentionally overstated. The potential cost of action at this point -- especially nuclear action (I can't believe sane people are actually suggesting that option) -- far outweighs the potential cost of inaction.
That's interesting that you equate George Bush to Ahmalamadingdong and that says a lot about your Benedict Arnold attitude to your home country. Your desire for inaction is noted in conjuntion with your trechorous, anti-American stance.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds