United Nations....Or not

[450slcguy]

What do you all think about the UN and it's ability to deal with current world issues such as Iran's nuclear intentions? Can the 5 permanent members of the security council (US,France,China,Russia and the UK) actually overcome their nationalistic agendas and join together to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

The last couple of days has revealed Iran is testing new High Tech. weapons delivery systems with reported success. I just can't imagine how these new weapons delivery systems and their "peaceful nuclear energy program" are not related.

I personally think that if the UN doesn't take immediate and effective action (hate to think what that might entail) to stop the Iranians aggressive and extremist behavior, we'll all regret ignoring the potential consequences, specifically to the western nations. Oh, I forgot to mention N. Korea, though probably to late there.

[Botnst]

Either leave Iran alone or destroy them. Half measures just won't work out.

If we leave them alone they will go nuke and they are, like Saddam, likely to provide anti-western terrorists with the means and methods of large-scale terror if not injury. By using surrogates against us, our governments will be unable to agree on a response. OTOH, the young Persians are growing increasingly restive toward the mullocracy. Their current civilian leader is so reactionary that he is actually increasing the split in Persian society between the young, educated, more secular folks and the older, marginally educated religious zealots. As the younger generation moves into the workforce and into politics they will transform Iran.

If we resort to sanctions under the auspices of the UN it will be a disgusting bunch of half-measures that will corrupt everybody involved, as happened with Iraq.

If Iran goes nuke and the UN authorizes an embargo, there is only one navy in the world that can maintain a long term presence for that mission.

The UN will never authorize violence against Iran.

Iran is burying their nuke R&D. There is only one air force in the world capable of delivering bombs required to either destroy or seal underground bunkers.

Iran is a far different country from Iraq. It is mostly mountainous and has a very large population of young people. Anybody up for another war, this one with a country that is quite nationalistic, well educated, and potentially soon to possess nukes?

Not me. First, Iran has made no threats against its neighbors except Israel. Therefore it is not a strategic threat to the USA. Second, the country cannot help but moderate as the young people enter commercial life and government. Let Belgium and Spain handle it.

Bot

[Brian Carlton]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Iran is a far different country from Iraq. It is mostly mountainous and has a very large population of young people. Anybody up for another war, this one with a country that is quite nationalistic, well educated, and potentially soon to possess nukes?

Not me. First, Iran has made no threats against its neighbors except Israel. Therefore it is not a strategic threat to the USA. Second, the country cannot help but moderate as the young people enter commercial life and government. Let Belgium and Spain handle it.

Bot

I find this quite interesting. A fellow who strongly supports the war in Iraq to impose a democratic rule and stabilize the region now abandons the possibility of war with a neighboring country that will soon possess a much greater threat to the region.

Talk about a 180 degree turn...................

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

I find this quite interesting. A fellow who strongly supports the war in Iraq to impose a democratic rule and stabilize the region now abandons the possibility of war with a neighboring country that will soon possess a much greater threat to the region.

Talk about a 180 degree turn...................

I have written about why I supported the war. I have written it several times in mind-numbing detail with excruciating precision. You may wish to look for that, but on the off-chance that you are not going to spelunk the archive but are really interested in my reasoning and not just playing to score points, I'll give you the Cliff Notes version.

Iran has never attempted or even expressed expansionist interests in order to gain control of ME oil. ME oil is a strategic interest of the USA. That is in direct and complete contrast with Iraq under Saddam.

As long as Iran doesn't touch the third rail, let it be.

B

[Brian Carlton]

Originally Posted by Botnst

As long as Iran doesn't touch the third rail, let it be.

B

Yes, I did forget the crucial difference concerning the ME oil.

But, do you truly believe that Iran will simply remain inside it's own borders if they posess nuclear capabilties........seems like a stretch to me.

Personally, I don't believe that our decisions of what to do in the ME should strictly be based upon the control of the oil supply.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Yes, I did forget the crucial difference concerning the ME oil.

But, do you truly believe that Iran will simply remain inside it's own borders if they posess nuclear capabilties........seems like a stretch to me.

Personally, I don't believe that our decisions of what to do in the ME should strictly be based upon the control of the oil supply.

If Iran tries to expand through nuclear intimidation of its neighbors, and if those neighbors are strategically important to us (KSA, Kuwait, Iraq), then we can rain nuclear destruction on them to a degree that maybe to horrible for us to actually do. I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, as you may.

The next president will probably be the one who will have to deal with the issue, if it comes up. Hopefully the political parties will find adults to run as candidates, but their track records indicate otherwise. Also, if Israel believes itself in mortal danger from Iraq, Israel has a history of dealing abruptly with those who would threaten that nation.

You and I disagree concerning the ME. If there was no oil, then the ME would not be of strategic interest to the USA. I cannot imagine that we would have invaded Kuwait and later, Iraq, had not the origins of 65% of the oil reserves of the planet resided there.

If we can develop some viable alternative to petroleum then all of these problems disappear.

B

[azimuth]

The UN is a gelding.

[450slcguy]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Either leave Iran alone or destroy them. Half measures just won't work out.

If we leave them alone they will go nuke and they are, like Saddam, likely to provide anti-western terrorists with the means and methods of large-scale terror if not injury. Not me. First, Iran has made no threats against its neighbors except Israel. Therefore it is not a strategic threat to the USA. Second, the country cannot help but moderate as the young people enter commercial life and government. Let Belgium and Spain handle it.

Bot

Leave them alone, I'm not so sure. I agree that sanctions and embargos probably are a waste, but they would be worth the effort just to show unity and some restraint amongst the world powers.

Somehow I just don't see the "moderate young people" being Iran's saveing grace, not in my lifetime. Sooner or later, somewhere in the world a nuclear war is gonna happen, unless the World unites (ie...the UN), and stops these rouge nations from aquiring the capability to wage that kind of war.

So I conclude the UN security council should take responsibility and stop Iran before it's to late, even if that means Sanctions, embargos, or ultimately war.

[Brian Carlton]

Originally Posted by Botnst

You and I disagree concerning the ME. If there was no oil, then the ME would not be of strategic interest to the USA. I cannot imagine that we would have invaded Kuwait and later, Iraq, had not the origins of 65% of the oil reserves of the planet resided there.

If we can develop some viable alternative to petroleum then all of these problems disappear.

B

We don't disagree that the ME is of strategic interest because of oil.

We disagree about what is necessary to secure the interest.

We must develop a viable alternative to petroleum in the long run. This is a fact.

But, in the short run, we can do a significant amount to cut the consumption of gasoline. It has finally dawned on my good friend George that increasing the CAFE for trucks and SUV's might be a good idea. Funny.......wonder where he got that idea.........????

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Leave them alone, I'm not so sure. I agree that sanctions and embargos probably are a waste, but they would be worth the effort just to show unity and some restraint amongst the world powers.

Somehow I just don't see the "moderate young people" being Iran's saveing grace, not in my lifetime. Sooner or later, somewhere in the world it's gonna happen some day, unless the World unites (ie...the UN), and stops these rouge nations from aquiring the capability to wage that kind of war.

So I conclude the UN security council should take responsibility and stop Iran before it's to late, even if that means Sanctions, embargos, or ultimately war.

Az has it right concerning the UN. They are a debate club, not an enforcement agency. At no time has any 'show of unity' by the UN intimidated anybody into changing behavior. They could hardly even pass a resolution concerning Iran. The chance of them doing anything meaningful with China one of their principle trading partners is just about nil.

Young people changed the course of the USA between 1968 and 1972. Young men will be a diabolically difficult problem for China over the next 40 years as a tremendous surplus of men leads them to seek mates elsewhere. Young people are the energy that drives the engine of humanity, it ain't the old fahrts who just get to blow the whistle.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

...It has finally dawned on my good friend George that increasing the CAFE for trucks and SUV's might be a good idea. Funny.......wonder where he got that idea.........????

I don't know and don't particularly give a rat's a$$. It's a modest gesture to a monumental problem. Underwhelmingly mundane.

[450slcguy]

Originally Posted by Botnst

As long as Iran doesn't touch the third rail, let it be.
B

On second thought, maybe your right. If they step out of line just once, wipem out. I've always favored the neutron bomb strategy, we could use the oil.

[peragro]

I think what we're seeing in Iran is a last grasp at nationalism and power from the power base that is the Mullahs. They are threatened by pending democracy in their backyard and will go to great lengths to stop it. Problem is they have a large younger generation that is avid for civil freedoms and isn't too hot about Sharia. Reference the wildfire that is the Internet in Iran. There are plenty of options for dealing with Iran prior to military ones that weren't available with regard to Iraq. This is a different animal.

As far as the UN goes... Gelding is a good description. Eunuch is better based upon their ability to work behind the scenes and really screw things up. I can't see the reason for them any longer other than a worldwide health care organization. And still don't understand how France became a member of the security council way back when.

[Vronsky]

The only reason why Iran wants nukes is that Israel has them.
So why not make Israel to give 'm up, and let them join NATO for their security? Problem solved, I'd say.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Vronsky

The only reason why Iran wants nukes is that Israel has them.
So why not make Israel to give 'm up, and let them join NATO for their security? Problem solved, I'd say.

Good ideas. I am nearly certain the USA would go for it but I doubt that all of the other Nato powers would.

Though you are probably right concerning Iran's stated reason concerning Israel, there is not much hope that anybody could (1) Persuade Israel to give-up what they deny having and (2) that Iran would give-up joining the Nuke club with Sunni nations surrounding Iran (except Iraq), one of which is nuclear. Sunnis and Shiites in Pakistan have been dynamiting each other's mosques since there has been dynamite.

B