NZGames.com Forums
Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Go Back   NZGames.com Forums > General > Open Discussion
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 7th February 2007, 17:49     #121
Draco T Bastard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsh
The way I see this playing out: 1: Iran's top scientists are taken out, bomb is not made, Iran gets a wakeup call and allows nuclear inspections; 2: Iran ignores warning and continues threats against Israel, facility wiped out.
Iran hasn't made any threats against Israel but Israel and the US have made threats against iran.
__________________
Cheers
Draco T Bastard
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 17:58     #122
Simon
SHG
 
Aside from its President calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, you mean?
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 17:59     #123
ZuldaN
 
Hah, yeah was just thinking that. Some may perceive that as somewhat of a threat...
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 18:45     #124
Hory
 
The statement was wilfully misinterpreted by the Western media, he was actually saying he wanted to wipe the current Israeli regime from the map, not the entire country.
Israel have actually threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran, however for some reason that threat does not get repeated ad infinitum by the Western media.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 18:51     #125
?>Superman
 
I had no idea that was the case till i just read what Hory said.

<-------- Brainwashed
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 18:59     #126
hsh
 
edit.. will post link later.

Last edited by hsh : 7th February 2007 at 19:00.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 19:07     #127
ZuldaN
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hory
The statement was wilfully misinterpreted by the Western media, he was actually saying he wanted to wipe the current Israeli regime from the map, not the entire country.
Israel have actually threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran, however for some reason that threat does not get repeated ad infinitum by the Western media.

His comments pretty clearly indicate Israel and not specifically the current regime to me.

Here's a report from non-western media for you:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ar...rchiveId=15816
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 19:13     #128
Hory
 
His comments properly translated were
"the occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

How that gets twisted into a threat of a second Jewish holocaust is another example of the laziness that passes for journalism nowadays.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 19:34     #129
Rep
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rep
And US Citizens will bring back the burning of draft cards.

In Isreal , everyday you can hear how Iran wants to wipe Isreal off the map.

As it turns out , what was said was along the lines of:

"The Imam said the regrime in Jerusalem needs to vanish from the pages of history."

And then gives the example of this happening to Iran under the Shah via Islamic
Revolution ; then the USSR (internal decision to change via Gorbachev) ; followed by Iraq via US invasion.
Someone should go slap Jpost's translator...
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 22:01     #130
ZuldaN
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hory
His comments properly translated were
"the occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

How that gets twisted into a threat of a second Jewish holocaust is another example of the laziness that passes for journalism nowadays.
I think that could still be interpreted as the Jewish occupation of Jerusalem/Israel.

Regardless, even if he just means the current government then that is still a very aggresive statement.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 23:37     #131
[WanG] Wandarah
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTiTus
Apart from the fact that we don't /know/ this - only speculate, it's hypocritical of a nation with nuclear arms to say another country can't have nuclear arms (and then threaten to use force if they don't stop their research). Considering making bombs is not the only use for their research, we have no right to say they can not conduct research.

The US are trying to remain dominant, and I have much respect for the President of Iran for refusing to be intimidated. Since the US believes they have the right to do whatever they want, I see it entirely fair that Iran should believe it OK for them to act the same way.

Practise what you preach niggas.
This is not some high school debate. We're talking about Nuclear armed states here. Who cares if it's hypocritical? Honestly man, what gets you off about having more Nuclear armed nations in the world?

Using 'it's hypocritical' as a means to justify a move which quite obviously would make the world even more unstable is just fucking bizarre to me eh.

The insane anti-americanism which seems to destroy peoples ability for critical thinking is the biggest danger in the world if you ask me.

We have people actually cheering Iran on.

What the fuck is wrong with you all?
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 23:41     #132
PsyK
 
It only leads to more instability if your definition of stability is haivng 1 country above the rest. I'm not saying that isn't stability, just that stability is up for interpretation :P
__________________
You ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers!
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 23:43     #133
[WanG] Wandarah
 
No, that isn't my definition of stability - that definition can produce stability however.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2007, 23:56     #134
PsyK
 
But you get what i'm getting at though right, it could prolly be put in a light that shows it creating stability if you feel having a balance of power as creating stability.
__________________
You ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers!
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 00:03     #135
?>Superman
 
What Wandarah is saying makes sense...its just that i really want Iran to win and Israel to get sent home with a sore ass and two black eyes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 00:25     #136
Draco T Bastard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah
This is not some high school debate. We're talking about Nuclear armed states here. Who cares if it's hypocritical? Honestly man, what gets you off about having more Nuclear armed nations in the world?

Using 'it's hypocritical' as a means to justify a move which quite obviously would make the world even more unstable is just fucking bizarre to me eh.

The insane anti-americanism which seems to destroy peoples ability for critical thinking is the biggest danger in the world if you ask me.

We have people actually cheering Iran on.

What the fuck is wrong with you all?
The UN was created to produce stability throughout the world. To bring wars to and end. This was supposed to be accomplished by the use of international law. Such law breaks down when nations, such as the US and Israel, ignore that law and say that they are above that law. This total disregard for the rule of law is what causes instability.

When we go into WWIII it will because of the actions of the US, Israel and others of the coalition of the willing.


http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...le_23898.shtml
Quote:
Brzezinski, who opposed the March 2003 invasion and has publicly denounced the war as a colossal foreign policy blunder, began his remarks on what he called the “war of choice” in Iraq by characterizing it as “a historic, strategic and moral calamity.”

“Undertaken under false assumptions,” he continued, “it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean principles and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.”
__________________
Cheers
Draco T Bastard

Last edited by Draco T Bastard : 8th February 2007 at 00:27.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 00:27     #137
[WanG] Wandarah
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyK
But you get what i'm getting at though right, it could prolly be put in a light that shows it creating stability if you feel having a balance of power as creating stability.
Sure, I get what you're saying. In reality though, nations want to dominate what they can, so thier citizens have advantages over others. If Iran gets nukes, they'll throw thier weight around a little more - seeking to get what they can. There will be no 'balance of power', there will just be nations trying to gain power, or release themselves from the power of others.

As far as I know, every country that has nuclear power, also has nukes and/or a military alliance with a country which says on paper, that said ally would be willing to use nuclear weapons in the nations defense. This is why there isnt wouldnt be any such thing as a regional nuclear war. Any scenario would quickly become global.

Iran has neither, yet. When it does (and it will) get nuclear weapons, it wouldnt surprise me if they relatively quickly proliferate throughout the middle east. As it would make sense for Iran to lead a bloc of nations 'against' the west. That is the real danger here as I see it.

All we end up with in the end, is more motherfuckers with nukes, and more fingers in a position to press the buttons. How any thinking human being could say - 'Oh! But America has Nukes! Everyone should be allowed to have nukes!' is entirely fucking beyond me eh.

Is it so it becomes more of a fair fight? Huh? Wha? Who wants a fair fight when it comes to nukes?

Oh, and I'm far less confident in the Iranian ability to hold off on pressing that button.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 00:30     #138
[WanG] Wandarah
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard
The UN was created to produce stability throughout the world. To bring wars to and end. This was supposed to be accomplished by the use of international law. Such law breaks down when nations, such as the US and Israel, ignore that law and say that they are above that law. This total disregard for the rule of law is what causes instability.

When we go into WWIII it will because of the actions of the US, Israel and others of the coalition of the willing.
Fuck you really buy into the propoganda for the drooling masses dontcha.

The UN is entirely ineffective. The UN is the one that gave nations veto votes. 'Instability' exists with or without the UN.

Lots of nations aside from the demonic US and the evil beyond compare Israel break UN sanctions and orders. Iran is one of them too.

The UN is ineffective, because no one is scared of the UN.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 08:52     #139
Hory
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

Oh, and I'm far less confident in the Iranian ability to hold off on pressing that button.

Of all the nuclear states including Pakistan and North Korea, I'm most nervous about Israel having nuclear capabilities given that they are already threatening to use them against Iran. Any sense of restraint and deterrent other nuclear nations have against using them does not exist for Israel due to the unwavering military, financial and diplomatic support of the world's sole superpower they enjoy.

Iran are not going to launch an unprovoked attack on Israel, given the military strength of Israel and the US, that would be completely insane. I'm not saying Iran is a great place with a well-balanced leadership and government but they are not a rogue state and they are not going to act against their own best interests.

And of course Iran does not have nuclear weapons and will not have them for at least a decade, so I think fretting about them now is just buying into the American and Israeli propaganda created to justify invading yet another country.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 09:44     #140
Draco T Bastard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah
The UN is entirely ineffective. The UN is the one that gave nations veto votes. 'Instability' exists with or without the UN.

Lots of nations aside from the demonic US and the evil beyond compare Israel break UN sanctions and orders. Iran is one of them too.

The UN is ineffective, because no one is scared of the UN.
The setup of the UN was badly done - no doubt about that. The veto vote given to the major nations after WWII was purest stupidity. Nations with the vote won't adhere to the rules because they could effectively veto any actions against them. It gives nations without that vote absolutely no compunction to adhere to the rules because the nations with the veto don't. The rules must apply equally to everyone to bring stability.

It's not just sanctions and orders that are being disobeyed but the actual base rules as well. The invasion of Iraq was against those rules. The actions of the US in Nicuragua in the 80s was against them as well and several other actions by the US. The US keeps breaking the rules and usually with no consequence. So does Israel. Counter to what the US says Iran hasn't actually broken any of the rules. They've bent a few but they've made an effort to correct that.

Having to have nations afraid of the UN won't help stability as nations would just leave the UN. Having all nations abide by the rules that they agreed to in the UN would. Iran have every right to develop nuclear power including the ability to enrich uranium under the terms of the NPT. The actions of the UN security council at the behest of the US to put sanctions on Iran for doing so was against the rules.
__________________
Cheers
Draco T Bastard
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 10:39     #141
Konev
 
Iran has yet to break any UN resolutions or breech the nuclear non poliferation treaty in the middle east.

a civilian nuclear power plant is LEGAL under the NPT.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 11:46     #142
DrTiTus
HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah
All we end up with in the end, is more motherfuckers with nukes, and more fingers in a position to press the buttons. How any thinking human being could say - 'Oh! But America has Nukes! Everyone should be allowed to have nukes!' is entirely fucking beyond me eh.
I believe Iran is seeking equal footing rather accepting a default position of loss, and I think this is fair?

I would prefer that no one had nukes as well.

But in reality, its much easier to threaten a country knowing they don't have nukes, than threatening a country which you know is likely to cause chaos once you press your own button. From 4th form social studies, we learnt this was Mutually Assured Destruction. There is currently no mutual assurance of destruction coming from threatening Iran - but if they had nuclear weapons, things would be different.

I don't encourage the use of nuclear weapons as an aggressive force and something to just "push the button" when you feel scared, but to possess them allows a sense of defence against being totally taken advantage of.
__________________
Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand...

Last edited by DrTiTus : 8th February 2007 at 11:50.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 12:22     #143
Draco T Bastard
 
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/46...ectid=10422871
Quote:
The truth may be that Iran is seeking only a "threshold" nuclear weapons capacity - a level of technological expertise from which it could, in an emergency, develop nuclear weapons in only six months or so. Such a position is entirely legal, and some 40 countries currently occupy it.

The truth may also be that the nuclear-armed neighbour Iran really worries about is not Israel but Pakistan, whose 1998 nuclear tests scared Iranian strategists half to death.

Iranians don't worry about the intentions of Pakistan's dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, but they know it is a one-bullet regime and they worry a great deal about what kind of fanatics might succeed him.

So maybe Chirac's gaffe was not as accidental as it seemed. Maybe he wanted people to re-examine all the lies and half-truths we are told about Iran as Washington seems to be gearing up for another attack.

And maybe we should.
__________________
Cheers
Draco T Bastard
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 19:07     #144
Rep
 
Traditionally war has been used to hold back natural and crisis driven social change.

The lost generation during the first world war.

The West arming Germany before WW2 to fight the USSR and to put the Nazi's in power norrowly defeating the Communists. In the US alone Pres.
FDR had Ford , the Rockerfellers , Hearst and others freaking out over the Wagner Act that greatly favoured workers.

During the Sixties the racial struggles resulted in Kennedy getting killed by reactionary forces shortly after pulling out of Vietnam. LBJ changed this with the BS Bay of Tonkin incident and was followed up with Mc Namara's 100,000 conscripts from poor assed areas of the US.

But the biggest effect is when massive amounts of money are diverted from education and health etc then wasted on war , much like the spending bill Bush has before Congress at the moment. 3 Trillion dollars isn't it?

And that's not even counting what gets into the hands of the Iraqi insurgents.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2854955

Last edited by Rep : 8th February 2007 at 19:09.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2007, 19:13     #145
Rep
 
And this:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/07/unger-article/\

Norquist: Bush’s Advisers Telling Him ‘Invade Iran. Then Everyone Will See How Smart We Are’
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 00:58     #146
[WanG] Wandarah
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTiTus
I believe Iran is seeking equal footing rather accepting a default position of loss, and I think this is fair?

I would prefer that no one had nukes as well.

But in reality, its much easier to threaten a country knowing they don't have nukes, than threatening a country which you know is likely to cause chaos once you press your own button. From 4th form social studies, we learnt this was Mutually Assured Destruction. There is currently no mutual assurance of destruction coming from threatening Iran - but if they had nuclear weapons, things would be different.

I don't encourage the use of nuclear weapons as an aggressive force and something to just "push the button" when you feel scared, but to possess them allows a sense of defence against being totally taken advantage of.
I think that was my point. You seem to think a stance of Mutally Assured Destruction is better than an American hegemony.

I do not.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 01:02     #147
[WanG] Wandarah
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konev
Iran has yet to break any UN resolutions or breech the nuclear non poliferation treaty in the middle east.

a civilian nuclear power plant is LEGAL under the NPT.
Iran broke the UN applied seals at uranium processing plants. While not a drafted resolution, I think the act was the same, dont you?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 01:04     #148
[WanG] Wandarah
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard
Having to have nations afraid of the UN won't help stability as nations would just leave the UN. Having all nations abide by the rules that they agreed to in the UN would. Iran have every right to develop nuclear power including the ability to enrich uranium under the terms of the NPT. The actions of the UN security council at the behest of the US to put sanctions on Iran for doing so was against the rules.
I can only suggest the UN sends out some more sternly worded memos and crosses its fingers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 01:14     #149
Rep
 
The UN is made weak by the major powers in the security council. They would have never joined the UN if they thought it would cost them money ,or power now would they Wanda?

War is profit remember?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 01:17     #150
Rep
 
Unanswered questions in Iraq. (Worth the read).
By Bill Van Auken
6 February 2007

In its attempt to manufacture a case for military aggression against Iran, the Bush administration has made wholly unsubstantiated allegations that Iranian agents were responsible for a January 20 raid conducted on a supposedly secure US facility in the Iraqi city of Karbala. Five American military personnel were killed in the raid.

The only rationale given for this charge came from American officials speaking to the media on condition of anonymity, who said that the operation—carried out by unidentified individuals in American uniforms—was too “sophisticated” for Iraqi opponents of the US occupation to have carried out on their own.

Why Iran would have an interest in staging such an attack, and this attack in particular, has never been explained. The five US soldiers who were killed—one of them on the spot and the four others after being abducted—had been meeting with local authorities to coordinate security operations for pilgrims—many of them Iranian—coming to Karbala for the Shia religious festival of Ashura.

Moreover, as Juan Cole, professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Michigan, pointed out on his web site, “Informed Comment,” whoever carried out the attack dumped the bodies of the captured Americans as well as the cars used in the raid in the town of Mahawil, a predominantly Sunni area—hardly a spot likely to be chosen by Iranian-backed Shia militia members.

There has been little new factual reporting on the aftermath of the raid, aside from remembrances and funerals for the US troops who were killed. Who carried it out and what their motives were remain a mystery.

Yet the insinuation of an Iranian connection has been widely disseminated. The New York Times carried a January 31 article with the bald headline, “Iran May Have Trained Attackers That Killed 5 American Soldiers, US and Iraqis Say.”

Citing unnamed US officials, the Times reported, “The officials said the sophistication of the attack astonished investigators, who doubt that Iraqis could have carried it out on their own—one reason a connection to Iran is being closely examined. Officials cautioned that no firm conclusions had been drawn and did not reveal any direct evidence of a connection.”

One of the officials added that the attacks “could be seen as retribution for three recent American raids in which Iranians suspected of carrying out attacks on American and Iraqi forces were detained.” In other words, Iranian guilt is deduced from the raids carried out by US military forces themselves against Iranian consular officials in Iraq.

Aside from these sensationalist and unfounded charges, the Times article makes the following interesting observations:

“Tying Iran to the deadly attack could be helpful to the Bush administration, which has been engaged in an escalating war of words with Iran.”

In addition, the Times included this: “The unusual nature of the attack has made it a major topic of discussion in the upper echelons of the Iraqi government. It has spawned bizarre theories including the idea that a Western mercenary group was somehow involved.”

What is the basis of this “bizarre theory?” According to all accounts of the raid, the dozen or so who carried it out were waved through checkpoints surrounding the meeting site because they were traveling in a convoy of SUVs of the type used by American forces in Iraq, wearing US uniforms and carrying US-style weapons as well as ID cards. Moreover, they spoke English.

According to the Associated Press, “One Iraqi official said the leader of the assault team was blond.”

At this point, no one has provided a credible explanation of the attack or identified those who carried it out. But the Iraqi theory reported in the New York Times is certainly no more “bizarre” than the claims that Iran was responsible.

In short, if the attackers dressed, acted and looked like Americans and spoke English, there is always the possibility that they were indeed Americans.

There are certainly an ample number of “Western mercenaries” in Iraq. As the Pentagon revealed last December, there are as many as 100,000 private government contractors in the country.

Companies like Blackwater USA and DynCorp have thousands of employees—many of them former US military personnel—under arms in Iraq. In a number of instances, government contractors have been implicated in criminal activity ranging from the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, to the killing of civilians, to wholesale embezzlement and graft. They have acted, at least until very recently, as a law unto themselves, subject to neither Iraqi jurisdiction nor that of the US military. (See: “Civilian contractors in Iraq placed under US military”).

As for a motive, there are any number of possibilities. Reports of bitter conflicts between uniformed troops and private military contractors—on at least some occasions involving armed violence—have come out of Iraq. (See: “Detention of US security contractors highlights ‘culture of impunity’ in Iraq”)

The existence of multi-million-dollar criminally corrupt operations, such as the one involving the former head of US reconstruction contracts in the city of Hillah, could certainly generate acts of murderous violence if anything or anyone threatened to expose or disrupt them.

It is also worth noting that the officer killed in the attack, Capt. Brian Freeman, was known in the military as a vocal opponent of the war. He had left the US Army in 2004 but was called back as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve and sent to Iraq as a civil affairs officer because of the growing shortage of deployable personnel.

Last December, just a month before he was killed, he took aside visiting Democratic senators Chris Dodd of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts at a Baghdad helicopter-landing zone to tell them what a disaster the US occupation had become.

But perhaps the most likely potential motive is suggested by the way in which the attack has been used to accuse Iran of responsibility for killing US troops.

In this regard, it is useful to recall the startling testimony delivered last week by former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski on the growing danger of a US war against Iran and what he called a “plausible scenario” for Washington launching such military action.

Such a war could begin, Brzezinski warned, with “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a quote/unquote ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran . . .”

Could the raid in Karbala have been the type of “provocation” of which Brzezinski warned?

There is an historical precedent for such staged military actions being used as the pretext for war. On September 1, 1939, Germany’s Nazi regime used SS troops dressed in Polish uniforms to “attack” a German radio station near the border in Upper Silesia. To lend greater authenticity to this self-assault, concentration camp inmates were murdered and brought to the scene to provide the necessary bodies. The provocation paved the way to the “defensive” German military invasion of Poland and the outbreak of the Second World War.

There is no more concrete evidence at this point to substantiate the case that there was a US source for the Karbala attack than there is to back up the claim that there was an Iranian one. But given the record of the Bush administration—the first major government to promulgate an international policy of “preventive war” since Hitler’s Third Reich—such a scenario cannot be dismissed out of hand.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 01:21     #151
[WanG] Wandarah
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rep
The UN is made weak by the major powers in the security council. They would have never joined the UN if they thought it would cost them money ,or power now would they Wanda?

War is profit remember?
I dont believe I'm arguing this point.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 07:15     #152
Wally Simmonds
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah
I think that was my point. You seem to think a stance of Mutally Assured Destruction is better than an American hegemony.

I do not.
Maybe for the West, but I can't see the ME or South America sharing your opinion
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 09:45     #153
Draco T Bastard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah
Iran broke the UN applied seals at uranium processing plants. While not a drafted resolution, I think the act was the same, dont you?
You mean the seals that Iran had voluntarily had applied and which they said was only temporary and a show of good faith? Which, after getting nothing in return from their effort, removed them as they said they would?
__________________
Cheers
Draco T Bastard
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 10:35     #154
Trigger
Laserman
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rep
But given the record of the Bush administration—the first major government to promulgate an international policy of “preventive war” since Hitler’s Third Reich—such a scenario cannot be dismissed out of hand.
good article, this bit makes one
__________________
Are you slow? The alleged lie that you might have heard, me saying, allagedly moments ago... That's a parasite that lives in my neck.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 14:04     #155
Sgt Seb
Up Unt At Dem!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard
The UN was created to produce stability throughout the world. To bring wars to and end. This was supposed to be accomplished by the use of international law. Such law breaks down when nations, such as the US and Israel, ignore that law and say that they are above that law. This total disregard for the rule of law is what causes instability.

When we go into WWIII it will because of the actions of the US, Israel and others of the coalition of the willing.


http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...le_23898.shtml
you may say the law 'breaks down' when the US breaks it, but international law is actually an illusion in the first place. its called power politics for a reason.

the only place law has is in a domestic setting where it is enforceable. in international politics international 'law' is simply agreements set up between nation states to formalise national interests.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 14:10     #156
Sgt Seb
Up Unt At Dem!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard
The setup of the UN was badly done - no doubt about that. The veto vote given to the major nations after WWII was purest stupidity. Nations with the vote won't adhere to the rules because they could effectively veto any actions against them. It gives nations without that vote absolutely no compunction to adhere to the rules because the nations with the veto don't. The rules must apply equally to everyone to bring stability.
The UN wouldn't have been created in the first place if the great powers had not been given the power of veto.

Remember, there is a gigantic gap between the great powers and the small powers. why on earth would they relinquish thier power to an international body where it could be used against them?

for the UN to have any power, it would have to be granted military force, which it could use against ANY state. this would mean it would have to be more powerful then any other single state. this is obviously completely impossible.

you need to get out of the mindset that the UN has any ability to control any state. states simply manipulate it to serve their own interests...power politics.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 14:13     #157
Sgt Seb
Up Unt At Dem!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rep
The UN is made weak by the major powers in the security council. They would have never joined the UN if they thought it would cost them money ,or power now would they Wanda?

War is profit remember?
war is waged to serve the national interest.

profit (ie haliburton) is a bonus
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 17:43     #158
Draco T Bastard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Seb
you may say the law 'breaks down' when the US breaks it, but international law is actually an illusion in the first place. its called power politics for a reason.

the only place law has is in a domestic setting where it is enforceable. in international politics international 'law' is simply agreements set up between nation states to formalise national interests.
Working on that principal then even domestic law is an illusion.
__________________
Cheers
Draco T Bastard
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 23:03     #159
[WanG] Wandarah
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Simmonds
Maybe for the West, but I can't see the ME or South America sharing your opinion
I'm sure quite a large number of nations would prefer continued existence, rather than global destruction.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2007, 23:05     #160
[WanG] Wandarah
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard
You mean the seals that Iran had voluntarily had applied and which they said was only temporary and a show of good faith? Which, after getting nothing in return from their effort, removed them as they said they would?
You continue to amaze me bro.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2023
Site paid for by members (love you guys)