02-16-2006, 06:39 PM #3 Pointbreak vbmenu_register("postmenu_2205379", true); Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: the square mile Age: 36 XY Posts: 1,475 Interesting article. It assumes an invasion of Iran, which nobody has proposed, and then criticises it. Not impressive for a middle east "specialist". It also pretends that all the concern about Iran is coming from Bush's mouth, when in fact it is a very "multilateral" concern. But that's inconvenient so it is ignored. The idea of "thwarting" the rise of oil hungry China and India is also ignorant. Saddam sold old to whoever paid for it. There is no exclusivity in oil exports. It goes to market and get bought and sold by traders. There is global supply and global demand, that's it. So a pretty lame article in my view. __________________ I'm worth a million in prizes The funny part is Bush and the rest shut the fuck up ever since north korea said it would use nukes if invaded by U.S or any other country coalition forces so he quietly switch to Iran.
Huh? And theres no need to invade Iran. The Priesthood can't survive long. All we have to do is sanction them to a degree where they cannot acquire nuclear weapons. If your country has a sworn enemy... no nukes.
Not much we can do about North Korea. The government in North Korea is a much more embeded military dictatorship. We can't strike offensivly, and sanctioning them in the 90's didn't work, our policy dealing with Korea in the 90's failed and now they probably have nuclear weapons. North Korea's a different animal from Iran though, North Korea has been reaching out to South Korea and even Japan in the past few years, and Jong Ill would never make an offensive strike. Iran on the other hand, is rulled by the Mullahs, and if the ayatollah decided it was gods will to destroy Israel, then it would be kosher. A nuclear Iran simply isn't an alternative. They must be sequestered to a point where they cannot build the bomb. We need to stop the Russians from dealing with them, and that can only be done through economics.
I think that a U.S. special forces invasion of Iran is quite possible because it would link together Iran with Iraq & Afganhistan.-A geographical unity. I am not in favour of an immediate invasion. I think a negotiated U.N. settlement is far more desirable to resolve the Iran nuclear weapons capability issue. If Bush sanctions an invasion of Iran,you can bet your bottom dollar that North Korea is next.Then the triad "axis of evil" is neutralised but at what price human life & world instability?.Are the means justified by the ends. I believe that Liberty & Democracy is the desire & right of all nations on Earth.But modelled on the specific needs of each country not one size fits all.
Pakistan is a military dictatorship, and in the sense of North Korea, it is much less likely to launch an offensive strike aginst India then Iran is to Israel. We also should have prevented proliferation to Pakistan, but should have's don't really matter. Aside from harboring terrosists, Pakistan has broken few international laws... and most of those problems are simply due to the fact that Musharraf can't police much of Pakistan. Iran's president has talked about destroying Israel on adresses to the nation. Keeping Iran away from nukes should be amongst our top political priorities.
