Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1614 times:
Well, after the EU has taken the lead with Iran after critisizing the US and UK over Iraq, I would hope that Bush tells the EU that although the US will follow their lead, the US will hold the EU responsible if Iran succeeds in developing nukes.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1602 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 1): Well, after the EU has taken the lead with Iran after critisizing the US and UK over Iraq, I would hope that Bush tells the EU that although the US will follow their lead, the US will hold the EU responsible if Iran succeeds in developing nukes.
Don't be absurd. Britain was one of the EU Three doing the negotiation with Iran. Or is the UK suddenly one of the bad guys now?
The idea was to try to persuade Iran to abandon nuclear research. The US was sceptical about its success and said so. The EU Three said they might well be right but it's worth a try. And the problem with that is what exactly?
In terms of the question itself, taking Iran to the Security Council is pretty pointless unless anyone has some kind of policy in mind. Otherwise it'll be "Iran, you are a very naughty boy" and that's it.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21554 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1588 times:
The international community is going to have to do something together to stop this. The US cannot act unilaterally anymore, and nor can the UK or anyone else. Fortunately, most people agree that Iran cannot be allowed to gain nuclear weapons, in light of past actions.
Russia and China may not be so keen, however, and thus I think it unlikely that the Security Council will be able to act. Thus, I see one of two things happening - either a coalition does the work (and it would be a much more comprehensive coalition than in Iraq), or Israel does.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Wingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2229 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1558 times:
The UN is useless, and in this case the Security Council will be nothing but an exercise in appearances. We just need to go through the motions solidifying the unity of Europe and the US in this case and providing ample opportuity for Iran to back down. But mark my words, military action is completely justified in this case and I hope the EU will see the futility of further talks. Let's just get in there, destroy every single nuclear-related installation and then get out. This is a very straightforward search and destroy mission on a massive scale. There's no need to do regime change or occupy civilian areas.
I wouldv'e even supported a go-alone approach on this one if the EU were to cave in but of course the jackasses in the White House already blew their wad on a useless $300B circle jerk in Iraq which makes EU participation in the Iran mission essential.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1557 times:
OH NO NOT UN ACTION!
Please don't sick the UN bureaucrats on us. We'll do anything. We'll agree to a food for oil program. We'll open our doors to inspectors. Anything but UN action. The UN carries on big stick and its sanctions have been shown to have tremendous ability to cause immediate compliance.
KSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
I find it hard to believe that the UN will be able to do much to persuade Iran to give up its ambitions. But what else can the world collectively do?
Should we threaten to use force? That probably wouldn't be too successful as it may provoke Iran to act first.
Sanctions? They won't have much of an effect on Iran.
Stern criticism? Now people are dreaming.
Military action? Possible if we know exactly where every nuke site is in Iran. They would probably retaliate, but the US, and Israel (and EU if they choose to be involved could easily win there) (i.e. not military occupation of Iran, just preventing the Iranian military from going over its borders).
Are you saying that today Iran is a secular paradise?
Anyhow, Iran will get the bomb if the UN/US/EU/Powers that be don't step in. As long as Israel has them, Iran will pursue it, and with the inoffical support of other Islamic nations, since they all see Israel as a "threat", and Iran having an a-bomb would be seen as a "deterrent". IMO, it will be the Cold War all over again, although I think that both Iran and Israel are slightly more hot on the button.
I believe that in the case of Iran a UN-sanctioned military action is not impossible, since nuclear weapons in that country pose a (real) clear and present danger to the whole region and beyond. Hopefully, the UN will get off it's ass, stop bickering and take a more leading role than in recent history.
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.