Librarium Online Forums banner

Can U.N. sanctions avert the Iranian nuclear threat?

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Appearing to finally come to a decision, some major European nations have noticed that just 'talking' to Iran about their nuclear program hasn't stopped the Iranians from moving forward with the expressed desire of developing a program that can ultimately lead to the destruction of Israel. Of course Iran wasn't very happy that they couldn't keep lulling these nations into a false sense of comraderie.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10803220/


Iran's president has made it very clear that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4384264.stm

Israel's military has insisted that even if an Iranian first strike is intercepted it will eliminate Iran completely with their nuclear second strike.


Want to read an article outlining the crisis?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47935

So the question is do you really think that U.N. sanctions will be enough to curtail the growing problem or do you think that Israel may have no choice other than to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities like they did to Iraq in the early 1980's?

Having nuclear capability isn't necesarilly a bad thing. It can safely provide power and comfort to thousands, on the other hand if used militarily it can also provide death and radiation sickness to thousands also.

Given the statements made recently by the current Iranian president it's clear to me that his government has no intention of using nuclear power for only peaceful means. It's my hope that sanctions can work. But I wouldn't condemn Israel for destroying Iran's capabilities today if they chose to do so.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
Well.. You could argue that Israel is an aggressive government with no right to nuclear weapons (let alone the stocks of chemical and biological weapons they have, since they haven't signed any international treaties restricting weapons technology.) I don't think Iran is neccesarily the problem here.. I wouldn't go so far as to say Israel is either. To be honest, neither is blameless.

Meanwhile, we in the Western world, who have massive arsenals of nuclear weapons, and include among our ranks the only country in the world ever to use them in warfare, feel content to take a morally superior attitude, and to decide who is capable or incapable of handling responsibility for weapons which could destroy our entire species. Does that strike anyone else as hypocritical?

I have abseloutely no doubt Israel will destroy Iranian nuclear facilities if it feels threatened. It's never exactly demonstrated a great measure of respect for international protocol regarding such things.

Sorry if this comes across as anti-Israel.. I'm not anti-Israel at all, as I'm sure there are some great people living there. However, to the extent that I hold opinions I am anti-racist, and I consider Zionism, one of the founding concepts of the Israeli state, a racist ideolology.
 

·
ISIS Secret Agent Squishy
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
The UN can't even avert an aggressive sneeze, how can anyone expect them to avert a nuclear incident? As usefull as the UN could have been, it has lost relevance in the world. This is partly the fault of the United States of Arrogance, who have constantly and consistantly ignored and rejected anything the UN has tried to do; and partly because they have what equates to no political clout - a toothless bulldog if you will. The most that the UN can actually do, is go "Oh, that's naughty, you shouldn't do that. Now you've been told". Even their own military protocols say that their fully armed and equipped soldiers can't protect innocents, they have to watch them get slaughtered, and just return fire if one of their own is shot; it's pathetic, you can't expect anyone to do anything if you are not prepared to enforce it.
 

·
/botnobot/
Joined
·
12,489 Posts
The UN will be only as effective as its members. Iran knows, as does N Korea, that the USA can't manage any actions beyond the diplomatic. It seems to me that the European members of the UN will have to support any actions if sanctions are violated, and those violations seem likely considering Iran's incalcitrance to global demands. They persist, breaking UN seals on equipment, while claiming they intend it only for energy. I think that's bull, and many governments also do, something made obvious by their demands to cease enrichment alone.

But does Iran have a sovereign right to pursue nuclear power? That's another problem, but although they are our ally, they're dangerous.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,446 Posts
I doubt it. Once someone has hinted that they wold love to "wipe the other off the map," they're usually pretty serious and will probably try to do it.

I would be much happier if the US government invaded a country like Iran or North Korea with an excuse like preventing the use of nuclear weapons than invading Iraq.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
I have to say No. South Africa devolped crude nuclear weapons even after UN sanctions were put on them, it just wont work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
I read that the government of Iran is worried about their leader as he ran as a moderate and then once he got in started behaving like a religious freak. He is not representative of the populace or the rest of is party and follows some heretical imam generally regarded as a nut by most Iranians. It's sort of like if a US presidential candidate pretended to be a normal guy and then once he got in he revealed he followed Kabbalah (the hollywood cult not the Jewish mystical philosophy) and made everyone wear those red strings and drink magic kabbalah water. If he gets too silly he will probably have an "accident."

I don't take the notion of a nuclear holocaust seriously anyway. Not gonna happen. It assumes that people in power are hateful of their enemies to the point of self-destruction, which I find very hard to believe.

Oh and I wholeheartedly agree with The_Giant_Mantis. Either everyone should be allowed to have nuclear weapons or no-one should. For the west to say "it's OK for us but not for you" is at best an offensively colonial attitude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
First off Isreal should not exist, they are like a very undisiplined child, spoiled and trying to get anything they want. And for the most part they get away with it.

Iran is the same way, and at this point has committed to too many threats, that they can't back down without looking spineless, something they don't want, so changing their mind diplomatically is probably not an option.

Our army is useless thanks to the higher ups and politians. They've been placed in a position where they can't move, and they've lost the psychological element they had. It used to be many people feared us because of our army, now it seems they've been slothed by all the tactical reliance on cruse missiles and other guided weapons.

Something needs to be done, but because of Iraq the US can't be a major participant in any operation for a while. And between the inevitable withdrawl and assisting in any operation in Iran, we have to train all our troops in Langauges spoken and written there, and urban and desert combat. Thye need to learn the customs, and then how to treat people so as to get respect as friends. Its easy to target the big green guy, who you can't talk to, and has a big gun. But if he wear customary clothing ot help blend in, and tries his best to communicate to, and knows not to look at your daughter, its possible he could be a friend.

But that would take a year or two. And I'm betting we don't have that. Plus I know the American people aren't ready for another war. I think we've already spent more money on this war, then they ever did in WWII. War is hell.


An alternate option is to infiltrate people into Israeli and Iranian nuclear weapon sites, and blow them up to recover the nuclear cores.
 

·
Librarian from Hell
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
Well, UN is afterall a fantastic organisation. Not a super-do-like-we-say-or-we'll-blow-you-to-pieces-power, others play that role.
UN is like LO, a forum.

If we cannot reach a solution with diplomacy, I daught we can reach a solution at all.

I'm getting quite scared by some peoples attitude earlier. All this war-talk is OK while being about the games, but when we are talking about reality it's completerly different.
War costs dearly in human lifes. The pain of losing your family and bodyparts. Children suffering from all sorts of hell, and you are talking about money.

So the question is do you really think that U.N. sanctions will be enough to curtail the growing problem or do you think that Israel may have no choice other than to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities like they did to Iraq in the early 1980's?
I think Israel do have a choice. How about trying diplomacy?
Give some and take some, not only demand a lot.

Imagine if another country did to them what they are doing to their arab brothers...again.

If they are allowed to use military force to destroy a potential threat in an other country, what would then be the argument against others to do the same?
An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.
 

·
The Voice of Reason
Joined
·
756 Posts
By a strict interpretation of the question, the answer is No, sanctions can't avert a potential war.

Yet the issue is far more complicated than that.

The real issue here is the authority and importance of implementing sanctions, not the sanctions themselves. In other words, how serious is the condemnation of the UN to the parties involved? In that light, then I would have to say that based on precedence, the sanctions STILL would not be a sufficient deterrent.

The problem is that the authority of the UN is based solely on the belief that it is a relevant body. Unfortunately, as far as international relations go, it is at best a marginal organization. Many governments have scoffed and/or rebuked UN resolutions routinely, or at least politically neutralized the powers of the UN in world affairs. Granted, the US has done this recently with the Iraq War (where it sucessfully navigated the UN politically to prevent a condemnation vote of the war), but by no means is the US the sole purpetrator. Other Security Council members such as France and Russia have directly violated UN sanctions to profit their respective nations (specifically, the oil sanctions against Iraq). Iraq under Hussein also routinely rebuked UN resolutions calling for weapons inspections. So while the UN may talk a good game, it has become clear to just about everyone in the world that it is a toothless tiger. That's not to say that it is a useless organization (it can handle humanitarian tasks pretty well), but that it by no means is a governing body for the planet.

Furthermore, to aggressive states like Iran, the UN has no authority. How can they be expected to care about the protestations of the UN, which it sees as a puppet of the infidel West?

@Andusciassus - Diplomacy with terrorists is a tricky game. Negotiation may appear to be a sign of weakness, encouraging further aggression. Secondly, it may have the effect of sending the message to would-be terrorists that" Hey, if you kill a lot of people, we will listen to your demands". It's a bit of a catch-22.

@Forger - Two points. First, I would not assume that the US military is slow nor stupid. True, they are currently engaged in a role for which they are ill- designed(Policing Iraq), but make no mistake. There is a huge difference between fighting a war and keeping the peace. No other military on the planet can compete with the US on the battle field. If anything, the gulf between US forces and the rest of the world is WIDENING, not shrinking. Hence, the term "Hyper-power" has been used to describe the U.S., as it has no real competitor at this time (though China is gaining).
Secondly, EVERY nation is trying to get what they want. That's what nations DO. What Israel "wants" is to have their land and not be bombed, or shot at, or invaded. Furthermore, I don't recall any Israeli leader calling for muslims to be "wiped off of the map". Is it selfish to wish to be allowed to exist?

Just some points.
 

·
Librarian from Hell
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
RJSuperfreaky said:
Diplomacy with terrorists is a tricky game. Negotiation may appear to be a sign of weakness, encouraging further aggression.
I understand this point of view, as there is a kind of logic in this, but I completely disagree.

First it's the definition of terrorist that is a very tricky matter. It's an "in the eyes of the beholder"-kind of thing. Words like this are quite dangerous as they are loaded with values.
The "terrorist" is evil. He kills only innocents. His violence is bad.
The "freedom-fighter" or even the "soldier" are other words used to describe the same phenomenon, but these are much more forgiving.
I'll use the word terrorist anyhow as they are all terrorists in my book.

But back to the negotiation part.
I think negotiation is a sign of strength. I think terrorism spawns in the emptiness where negotiations should have been in the first place. It is a scream supposed to reach through the fingers we have pressed so deep in our ears. If we listen careful a whisper would be enough.
Violence is not the way to deal with terrorists, it will but make more people suffer. With the suffering comes anger and with anger comes more violence.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
RJSuperfreaky said:
Hence, the term "Hyper-power" has been used to describe the U.S., as it has no real competitor at this time (though China is gaining).
Not sure there..

The People's Liberation Army is five times bigger than the US army in terms of manpower. China has its own arms industry, making modern, well designed weapons, which are massive updates on the old soviet stuff we still associate with chinese armed forces. Their troops are not poorly trained, or badly organized..

In short, they've completely broken away from the old Soviet model, and, in military terms, are probably the most powerful force in the world at present. What they lack, of course, is the extreme high technology we associate the US.. but basically, at present, anything the US has, China has a cruder version of. If they actually fought in a war, I have a feeling we'd be surprised.. and possibly horrified, by how powerful they've become.

What China lacks, of course, at present, is the status of an economic superpower. We can expect this to change, if current rates are an indication, sometime within the next 30-50 years.

RJSuperfreaky said:
Secondly, EVERY nation is trying to get what they want. That's what nations DO. What Israel "wants" is to have their land and not be bombed, or shot at, or invaded. Furthermore, I don't recall any Israeli leader calling for muslims to be "wiped off of the map". Is it selfish to wish to be allowed to exist?
The problem is not that Israel exists.. it's why it exists.

The popular image, which actually does carry a grain of truth, is that at the end of world war 2 the western world, feeling guilt tripped about the holocaust, decided to grant the Jews of Europe a piece of land roughly approximating their bibilical 'promised land.'

The trouble was, there were already a bunch of people living there.

The trouble with Israel is not that it exists as a nation, but that it exists in its current position as the result of pressure by Zionists on the powerful western governments. It exists, not because it has a recent historical reason to exist there, or because that area is historically Jewish. It isn't, it's been Muslim since the time of the Jihad. It exists on the presumption that, because the Jews are God's chosen people, they have a right to live there, which exceeds the right of those people who were already living there at the time.

Israel is therefore a state founded on the belief that Jews are metaphysically superior to Arabs, and that Jews have entitlement to lands which have been settled by Muslims for a thousand years. To a Muslim, who doesn't accept the Old Testament assertations that the Jews are God's chosen people, you can see why this might be a slightly offensive concept.

Of course, Israel is now outside of the capacity of the Western world to control, so we have to live with it. But you have to understand, if nothing else, how frustrating it must be to the Muslim world that such a state has been created on lands which used to be inhabited by Muslims (and which incidentally contain some of the most important Muslim holy sites) and that it still exists today with the full backing of the worlds greatest superpower.

Given this, I often wonder why Americans are suprised at their unpopularity within the Muslim world. I'd guess, with my rather limited perspective, that ninety percent of it is to do with Israel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
Librarian Augustine said:
Obviously World War 2 has taught us nothing as millions of people still want to kill each other because of race and such
Its human nature....can't stop it...
 

·
The Voice of Reason
Joined
·
756 Posts
The_Giant_Mantis said:
Not sure there..

The People's Liberation Army is five times bigger than the US army in terms of manpower. China has its own arms industry, making modern, well designed weapons, which are massive updates on the old soviet stuff we still associate with chinese armed forces. Their troops are not poorly trained, or badly organized..

In short, they've completely broken away from the old Soviet model, and, in military terms, are probably the most powerful force in the world at present. What they lack, of course, is the extreme high technology we associate the US.. but basically, at present, anything the US has, China has a cruder version of.

What China lacks, of course, at present, is the status of an economic superpower. We can expect this to change, if current rates are an indication, sometime within the next 30-50 years.
I'm not going to address the Israel part of your post, because we would get WAY off topic (and to be honest, I'm not sure how the anti-Israel stuff started in this thread, but whatever). The only thing that I would say is that it's hard to pinpoint exactly WHO'S land it is, depending on how far back you're willing to look. Jews were there 2000 years ago, so does that make it "their" kland? I don't know, but I do know that it's complex.

However, I will say that your assertion concerning the balance between Chinese and the US military is far off the mark. It is PRECISELY due to our current technological superiority that the US is in its position. Many of the same arguments you make were used to compare the USSR (when it existed) and the US. After the fall of the Soviet Union, many in the US military were suprised by the lack of sophistication of the USSR military, especially technologically. In the microchip era, they were using vacuum tubes, for crying out loud. The US needs to be wary of the Chinese, but militarily (and technologically), we are still ahead.

That does NOT give the US the right to bully everyone else around, but for the moment, we're still at the top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
RJSuperfreaky said:
I'm not going to address the Israel part of your post, because we would get WAY off topic (and to be honest, I'm not sure how the anti-Israel stuff started in this thread, but whatever). The only thing that I would say is that it's hard to pinpoint exactly WHO'S land it is, depending on how far back you're willing to look. Jews were there 2000 years ago, so does that make it "their" kland? I don't know, but I do know that it's complex.
Well if you look at it like that should the US give their land back to the Native Americans? Same goes for Australia and all the other ex-colonies. Right of conquest is still the only real form of right going in the world (if that makes sense). Morals don't come into it. Israel exists because the arab states do not have the military power to stop it existing when, if push came to shove, Israel is backed by so much of the western world.

RJSuperfreaky said:
However, I will say that your assertion concerning the balance between Chinese and the US military is far off the mark. It is PRECISELY due to our current technological superiority that the US is in its position. Many of the same arguments you make were used to compare the USSR (when it existed) and the US. After the fall of the Soviet Union, many in the US military were suprised by the lack of sophistication of the USSR military, especially technologically. In the microchip era, they were using vacuum tubes, for crying out loud. The US needs to be wary of the Chinese, but militarily (and technologically), we are still ahead.

That does NOT give the US the right to bully everyone else around, but for the moment, we're still at the top.
This point and all others relating to it are imo, null points. They're never going to go to war. The economies of the two countries are very different. The US has a powerfull economy because it has globablised brands (such as Nike, McDonalds and of course Microsoft). China has the largest workforce in the world capable of generating massive economies of scale. The two actually compliment each other quite well (hence my so many American companies produce stuff in the China, cos its cheaper, duh). There will probably never be a war between them because if anything they're economically dependent on each other.

Just my 2c :)
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
RJSuperfreaky said:
However, I will say that your assertion concerning the balance between Chinese and the US military is far off the mark. It is PRECISELY due to our current technological superiority that the US is in its position. Many of the same arguments you make were used to compare the USSR (when it existed) and the US. After the fall of the Soviet Union, many in the US military were suprised by the lack of sophistication of the USSR military, especially technologically. In the microchip era, they were using vacuum tubes, for crying out loud. The US needs to be wary of the Chinese, but militarily (and technologically), we are still ahead.
Okay.. This is actually a hell of a lot more off topic than the Israel post, which I only threw in as a counterargument to your insistance of Israel's territorial rights. I am trying to demonstrate that, to the Arab world, Israel has no territorial rights.. and they actually have a case which could be made there.

In fact, the China thing is so off topic, I'm going to delete my long post for the greater good, and merely restate my disagreement on the grounds that I don't think there's enough difference between US and Chinese technology to warrant a 3-1 kill ratio (my stats were wrong, sorry.) Modern Chinese weapons are not as good as US ones, true, but they're certainly the equal of those being built in many modern and highly developed countries in the world today, like France, for example, which are well into the microchip age. In fact, you could argue they've already gone further in their technological infrastructure, China is actually trying to build a stealth fighter right now, and has already made it to space. However, this is a topic for a seperate post, and I think we're going to disagree on the grounds that we both see the effect of technology in war differently, which can't really be proved save by sticking us in a fictional and hypothetical combat zone to observe.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top