• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

Mya said:
Strange that there were no complaints, only compliments, after the Israeli Air Force raid in 1981 that completely destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak!
Click to expand...

That fit with US interests at the time.

To a certain extent it looks like Obama wants it both ways, if Israel strikes Iran and is successful then he will be happy, but if not he'll say:"See? I warned you!"
Click to expand...

I don't think Obama sees a successful outcome if Israel strikes Iran. Most experts predict it would create such turmoil there that oil prices would go so high that it would be devastating for the world economy. He, nor the country need another war in the middle east. We haven't paid for the last two wars over there, nor Vietnam for that matter.
 
Catawba said:
Do you have link when the UN made the decision that Iran was in violation of the treaty?
Click to expand...

Note Article 3 of NPT:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf

Starting in 06, though there is stuff by the IAEA prior to this:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf

Then the UN Security Counsel Resolutions in response (06-11):

ODS HOME PAGE

ODS HOME PAGE

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/281/40/PDF/N0728140.pdf?

ODS HOME PAGE

ODS HOME PAGE

ODS HOME PAGE

ODS HOME PAGE

Edit: Don't feel like fixing the text in the links, but they all take you were they should.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
Note Article 3 of NPT:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf

Starting in 06, though there is stuff by the IAEA prior to this:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf

Then the UN Security Counsel Resolutions in response (06-11):

ODS HOME PAGE

ODS HOME PAGE

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/281/40/PDF/N0728140.pdf?

ODS HOME PAGE

ODS HOME PAGE

ODS HOME PAGE

ODS HOME PAGE

Edit: Don't feel like fixing the text in the links, but they all take you were they should.
Click to expand...


This was very helpful:

"There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link,
- Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or
- Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or
- You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application.
Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means."

But do you have link when the UN made the decision that Iran was in violation of the treaty?
 
Catawba said:
This was very helpful:

"There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link,
- Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or
- Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or
- You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application.
Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means."

But do you have link when the UN made the decision that Iran was in violation of the treaty?
Click to expand...

Go to this site:

UN Security Council: Resolutions 2011

click on one of the resolutions. Now all of my links should work for you. Or you can look up the relevant resolutions yourself. Not sure why copying and pasting the links did not work.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
MoSurveyor said:
Would you agree that sanctions from the Security Council qualify? I can't imagine Russia or China, both of which are friends of Iran, allowing sanctions if there were no violations.

Sanctions Committee - 1737
Click to expand...
I could not find any NPT violations referenced.
Click to expand...
Which is why I asked if you would agree that there were violations given these sanctions from the Security Counsel. I'll take your response as a 'No' and continue to wonder why else you think Russia and China would sanction a business partner.

But EagleEye found and posted what I did not. I trust his evidence is good enough?

Catawba said:
We can still easily bring more force to bear from Israel and our current bases on Iran than they could defend against.
Click to expand...
That could be said for most of the countries in the world - and we don't even need the Israeli addition you made.

But the map you referenced doesn't show troop numbers in those bases or types of military forces. (For example, a naval resupply base of 10,000 is not a military threat compared to 10,000 Marines.) Without military data such maps are useless for proving any level of military power or aggressive intent.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
Go to this site:

UN Security Council: Resolutions 2011

click on one of the resolutions. Now all of my links should work for you. Or you can look up the relevant resolutions yourself. Not sure why copying and pasting the links did not work.
Click to expand...

MoSurveyor said:
Which is why I asked if you would agree that there were violations given these sanctions from the Security Counsel. I'll take your response as a 'No' and continue to wonder why else you think Russia and China would sanction a business partner.

But EagleEye found and posted what I did not. I trust his evidence is good enough?

That could be said for most of the countries in the world - and we don't even need the Israeli addition you made.

But the map you referenced doesn't show troop numbers in those bases or types of military forces. (For example, a naval resupply base of 10,000 is not a military threat compared to 10,000 Marines.) Without military data such maps are useless for proving any level of military power or aggressive intent.
Click to expand...

The link worked that time, thanks drz!

Gentlemen, what you reference are related to protocol, not military threat to the US, which is what my original request was for.

This is evidenced by the measures proposed by the Security Council in response. From your link Mo:

"# a proliferation-sensitive nuclear and ballistic missile programmes-related embargo;
# a ban on the export/procurement of any arms and related materiel from Iran and a ban on the supply of the seven categories, as specified, of conventional weapons and related materiel to Iran;
# a travel ban and an assets freeze on designated persons and entities. The assets freeze also applies to any individuals or entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, the designated persons and entities, and to entities owned or controlled by them."


Nothing in there I can find about the need for a military strike on Iran.
 
Catawba said:
The link worked that time, thanks drz!

Gentlemen, what you reference are related to protocol, not military threat to the US, which is what my original request was for.

This is evidenced by the measures proposed by the Security Council in response. From your link Mo:

"# a proliferation-sensitive nuclear and ballistic missile programmes-related embargo;
# a ban on the export/procurement of any arms and related materiel from Iran and a ban on the supply of the seven categories, as specified, of conventional weapons and related materiel to Iran;
# a travel ban and an assets freeze on designated persons and entities. The assets freeze also applies to any individuals or entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, the designated persons and entities, and to entities owned or controlled by them."


Nothing in there I can find about the need for a military strike on Iran.
Click to expand...
The need for a military strike? If you're looking for that kind of documentation you won't find it anywhere. In fact, I doubt you will find what would be called "verifiable documentation" for it from anyone until well after the fact - if you ever find it at all.

As a learning exercise you might try to find verifiable UN documentation "about the need for a military strike on Iraq" in 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. UN Resolution 660 condemns the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait but mentiones nothing about a military solution to the problem - so if you find such documentation please provide a link because 10 minutes of searching turned up zip.


Ed:
Or are you saying we should have just let Kuwait remain under Iraqi rule indefinitely?


No, your original request was for:
Catawba said:
Do you have link when the UN made the decision that Iran was in violation of the treaty?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
The need for a military strike? If you're looking for that kind of documentation you won't find it anywhere. In fact, I doubt you will find what would be called "verifiable documentation" for it from anyone until well after the fact - if you ever find it at all.
Click to expand...

Exactly, we should learn from the mistakes made in taking the country to war with Iraq in 2003.

As a learning exercise you might try to find verifiable UN documentation "about the need for a military strike on Iraq" in 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. UN Resolution 660 condemns the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait but mentiones nothing about a military solution to the problem - so if you find such documentation please provide a link because 10 minutes of searching turned up zip.


Ed:
Or are you saying we should have just let Kuwait remain under Iraqi rule indefinitely?
Click to expand...

If merited at all, just as in 2003, it should have been a NATO action or by others in the region. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would not have had to die, nor the terrorist attack on 9/11, and consequently the war on terror that followed.





No, your original request was for:
Click to expand...

This was my original post in this thread on the subject, in response to a post by Mya:

Originally Posted by Mya View Post
Iran and Iraq = apples and oranges
Click to expand...


"In regards to military threat to the US they are peas in a pod."
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Exactly, we should learn from the mistakes made in taking the country to war with Iraq in 2003.
Click to expand...
I won't argue with the stupidity of the recent Iraqi war - but if we do anything militarily to Iran it won't be a ground war.

Catawba said:
If merited at all, just as in 2003, it should have been a NATO action or by others in the region. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would not have had to die, nor the terrorist attack on 9/11, and consequently the war on terror that followed.
Click to expand...
I'm not understanding what you're saying here at all.
The 1991 Iraqi War was under a UN flag if I recall correctly - as was Bosnia a few years later.




I did finally find the UN document that "authorized" the Iraqi war in 1991. It's as close as they ever get to mentioning anything military. Resolution 678:

ODS HOME PAGE - UN.org
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I won't argue with the stupidity of the recent Iraqi war - but if we do anything militarily to Iran it won't be a ground war.
Click to expand...

No one predicted we would have ground troops in Iraq for almost a decade. Striking Iran militarily would be an act of war and one cannot predict how it will end. Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was preceded by an air strike in 1998.

I'm not understanding what you're saying here at all.
The 1991 Iraqi War was under a UN flag if I recall correctly - as was Bosnia a few years later.

I did finally find the UN document that "authorized" the Iraqi war in 1991. It's as close as they ever get to mentioning anything military. Resolution 678:

ODS HOME PAGE - UN.org
Click to expand...

Your link didn't work for me so I looked up Resolution 678, and found this: Security Council resolution 678 (1990) on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait

You are right, it does authorize military action against Iraq in 1991. I stand corrected there, thanks! However, there was no such authorization of force by the UN for our invasion of Iraq in 2003, nor any that I have found for an attack on Iran.
Click to expand...
 
About the only thing you can predict from a war with Iran is that the entire region, if not the world, would be drawn in.
 
Catawba said:
No one predicted we would have ground troops in Iraq for almost a decade. Striking Iran militarily would be an act of war and one cannot predict how it will end. Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was preceded by an air strike in 1998.
Click to expand...

That's because we believed we could "give Iraq Democracy." This required staying until that was done. In Iran, we're not pushing Democracy on them, we just want the potential of nuke weapons removed. No need for boots on the ground, no need to stay there.

The first action in modern warfare is to achieve Air Superiority. This is achieved by hitting enemy airbases and air defense sites. This draws enemy fighter aircraft into battle where they can be destroyed. Once Air superiority is achieved the primary battle plan can begin. You'll see this theme over and over again. It's the most obvious, most logical first step. So just because the first step is similar to the first step in Iraq 2003, it has absolutely zero to do with the final mission objective.
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
That's because we believed we could "give Iraq Democracy." This required staying until that was done. In Iran, we're not pushing Democracy on them, we just want the potential of nuke weapons removed. No need for boots on the ground, no need to stay there.
Click to expand...

We weren't planning to "give Iraq Democracy" when we carried our our air strike in 1998. There was no need to invade and occupy Iraq either, but we did.

The first action in modern warfare is to achieve Air Superiority. This is achieved by hitting enemy airbases and air defense sites. This draws enemy fighter aircraft into battle where they can be destroyed. Once Air superiority is achieved the primary battle plan can begin. You'll see this theme over and over again. It's the most obvious, most logical first step. So just because the first step is similar to the first step in Iraq 2003, it has absolutely zero to do with the final mission objective.
Click to expand...

Like with Iraq, Iran does not present a military threat to the US. I don't believe in going to war with a country that is not a threat to us. That has worked poorly when we did it in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
 
Catawba said:
We weren't planning to "give Iraq Democracy" when we carried our our air strike in 1998. There was no need to invade and occupy Iraq either, but we did.
Click to expand...

We did not invade Iraq in 1998. Air strikes were used, establishing Air Superiority exactly as I described, and then Operation Desert Fox ended.

Catawba said:
Like with Iraq, Iran does not present a military threat to the US. I don't believe in going to war with a country that is not a threat to us. That has worked poorly when we did it in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Click to expand...

Any country that sponsors, or even turns a blind-eye to terrorism is a threat to the US (or any other country for that matter). Afghanistan was attacked because it sponsored the terrorists that perpetrated the massacre of over 3,000 people in the US. Iran not only sponsors terrorism, terrorism is the primary striking arm of Iran. That's why people like to believe Iran never attacked anybody. If Iran can make a terrorist strike in any country and later claim they know nothing, and Americans actually believe this, that tells Iran they can attack anywhere anytime with absolute certainty and that impressionable Americans will believe Iran is completely innocent. Why on Earth would Iran think retribution could ever happen? Lastly, Iran has attempted terrorist/assassinations in many countries including the USA, thus proving that Iran is NOT too suicidal to cause mayhem in the US. Thus Iran is a threat to the US.
 
EagleAye said:
We did not invade Iraq in 1998. Air strikes were used, establishing Air Superiority exactly as I described, and then Operation Desert Fox ended.
Click to expand...

You misread my post, I said our air strike preceded our invasion and occupation, just as it might in Iran.



Any country that sponsors, or even turns a blind-eye to terrorism is a threat to the US (or any other country for that matter). Afghanistan was attacked because it sponsored the terrorists that perpetrated the massacre of over 3,000 people in the US. Iran not only sponsors terrorism, terrorism is the primary striking arm of Iran. That's why people like to believe Iran never attacked anybody. If Iran can make a terrorist strike in any country and later claim they know nothing, and Americans actually believe this, that tells Iran they can attack anywhere anytime with absolute certainty and that impressionable Americans will believe Iran is completely innocent. Why on Earth would Iran think retribution could ever happen? Lastly, Iran has attempted terrorist/assassinations in many countries including the USA, thus proving that Iran is NOT too suicidal to cause mayhem in the US. Thus Iran is a threat to the US.
Click to expand...


Terrorists are not a people. The tactics of terrorism are employed by those around the world without the luxury of the technological weapons we have to kill people. Whether is comes from 19 Saudis or other people that hate us spread out all over the world. You can't bomb the world into respecting the US, it has be earned. And it is not earned by attacking countries that are of no military threat to us.
 
Catawba said:
You misread my post, I said our air strike preceded our invasion and occupation, just as it might in Iran.
Click to expand...

Actions separated by 5 YEARS. They are part of the same operation.

Catawba said:
Terrorists are not a people. The tactics of terrorism are employed by those around the world without the luxury of the technological weapons we have to kill people. Whether is comes from 19 Saudis or other people that hate us spread out all over the world. You can't bomb the world into respecting the US, it has be earned. And it is not earned by attacking countries that are of no military threat to us.
Click to expand...

It's true they are not a people, but a government that actively encourages and even employs terrorism, can be focused upon as a source of terrorism. Most of the world actively combats terrorism, Iran by contrast, uses it as a weapon. So we aren't attempting to bomb the world, just concentrations of those for whom civilian deaths are a primary goal (e.g.,"terrorists"). So while Iran is not a military threat, they remain a threat to the civilian populace of the US (and other countries). This makes terrorists (and anyone who supports their activities) enemies of the US, and therefore a viable military target.
 
EagleAye said:
Actions separated by 5 YEARS. They are part of the same operation.



It's true they are not a people, but a government that actively encourages and even employs terrorism, can be focused upon as a source of terrorism. Most of the world actively combats terrorism, Iran by contrast, uses it as a weapon. So we aren't attempting to bomb the world, just concentrations of those for whom civilian deaths are a primary goal (e.g.,"terrorists"). So while Iran is not a military threat, they remain a threat to the civilian populace of the US (and other countries). This makes terrorists (and anyone who supports their activities) enemies of the US, and therefore a viable military target.
Click to expand...



I second and third that opinion!:thumbs:
 
Your link didn't work for me so I looked up Resolution 678, and found this: Security Council resolution 678 (1990) on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait

You are right, it does authorize military action against Iraq in 1991. I stand corrected there, thanks! However, there was no such authorization of force by the UN for our invasion of Iraq in 2003, nor any that I have found for an attack on Iran.
Click to expand...
Unless Iran invades a neighbor and holds that position for several months, as happened with Iraq/Kuwait, I wouldn't expect to see a UN Resolution "allowing" any kind of military action. That won't happen even if they're in violation of the NPT for decades (they already have 8 years of violations). If I gave any impression to the contrary I'm sorry 'cause it's not going to happen, ever, and I never expected it to happen. If you expected proof of that kind then I missed it somewhere and I'll agree flat out that it won't happen. Even if Iran built 100 functioning nukes the UN won't "sanction" an invasion or any other kind of military action.

The point, however, is that Israel (especially) and other Western countries will not allow things to get that far before carrying out surgical strikes to cripple the ability of Iran to make a nuke. Personally, I think it's an uphill battle and that if Iran wants them they will eventually have them, though it may take a decade or more. What I'm hoping is Russia or China will at some point step in and convince them otherwise.
 
Catawba said:
No one predicted we would have ground troops in Iraq for almost a decade.
Click to expand...
Don't kid yourself, they knew going in it would be no short-term picnic. That's why we didn't take down Baghdad and Saddam in 1991, because there was no exit strategy. Bush Sr said as much. (I think it was in his book, too, but not sure.) We knew it would take years to get out and declined in '91. Do you honestly think we would have settled on the No Fly Zone option if it would have only taken another 2-3 weeks to end the whole thing permanently?

The Shrub was an idiot who didn't want to listen to his generals, or it was his intention all along, I don't know which and it doesn't matter, really. Regardless of the public rhetoric DoD knew what was coming. Those guys aren't stupid even if they're sometimes portrayed that way for political reasons.


(Sorry, EagleEye, I have to disagree with you on this one. I think DoD pretty much knew what was coming by invading Iraq and explained it to Shrub, who ignored them. They may not have counted on the high number of "terrorists" that joined in, which probably did delay things a year or two beyond expectations, but they knew it wasn't going to be a 24-month operation.)
 
who or what is The Shrub ?
 
Catawba said:
Like with Iraq, Iran does not present a military threat to the US. I don't believe in going to war with a country that is not a threat to us. That has worked poorly when we did it in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Click to expand...
Iran will present a deadly threat to a very close ally if they are allowed to develop nukes. Unlike the US, Israel isn't big enough to survive even a very limited nuclear war.


As for the others:
Korea was fought under the UN flag. If you have a problem with the Korean War I request you blast out at UN policy, not US policy.

Afghanistan was given plenty of opportunity to cooperate with the US to hunt down the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks and they declined repeatedly. The UN was aware of and, at least tacitly, 'allowed' the Afghan War to proceed. See Resolutions 1368 (12 Sep 01), 1478 (14 Nov 01), 1383 (6 Dec 01), and the Bonn Agreements (Dec 01) as well as others. Notice that after Dec 01 we were no longer at war with Afghanistan. The provisional government and the UN allowed the US-led coalition to remain in country to counter anti-government forces, specifically the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If you want to complain about this war I request you condemn the UN and, in this case, the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan.

I won't discuss Vietnam. I wasn't quite old enough for required participation but I was certainly a part of America at the time and no side of that war was pretty. To me it was the last war (except for the on-going Israeli situation) of the post-WWII era when European countries broke up their former empires, which had various repercussions all over the globe.


Mya said:
who or what is The Shrub ?
Click to expand...
I can see where you might not know that one. It's a derogatory term used by many for Bush Jr (aka 'W') as opposed to Bush, Sr.

Since we've been talking about both Iraqi wars - and both had a 'Bush' as Pres at the time - I needed to distinguish between them, and I prefer to use Shrub instead of W; I don't think he's entitled to his own letter of the alphabet.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Personally, I think it's an uphill battle and that if Iran wants them they will eventually have them, though it may take a decade or more. What I'm hoping is Russia or China will at some point step in and convince them otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think a free Iran, like a free Iraq, is gonna (as a government) say "ok, guys... enough WMD and nuke crap, we want development aid and we're gonna pour our money into education. We wanna be first world in two generations".
 
MoSurveyor said:
...
I can see where you might not know that one. It's a derogatory term used by many for Bush Jr (aka 'W') as opposed to Bush, Sr. Since we've been talking about both Iraqi wars - and both had a 'Bush' as Pres at the time - I needed to distinguish between them, and I prefer to use Shrub instead of W (like he's entitled to his own letter of the alphabet?).
Click to expand...

I understand now, thank you for the clarification MoSurveyor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom