“Not bluffing” about using military force against Iran

[WethePeopleUS]

Even if we cannot prove it 100% yet, we must be ready to strike if we discover they are close to developing a nuke.

That's illegal. You cannot attack a country that hasn't attacked you first. Otherwise, it's a war of aggression, no different than the nazis going into Poland.

For if a weapon with such destruction should fall into the hands of the Iranian regime, and then subsequently Hezbollah, it will be a dark day for the world. That is a risk that I would not be willing to take.

Iran is a signatory to the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".

Actually in the case for a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation there are six criteria for the attack to be justified, according to the modern just war principle: just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and finally, proportionality.

And Iran wouldn't be the first country in the world who was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and broke away from it right before they announced they were going to test their first bomb. North Korea is a prime example. So just because they are a party to the NPT doesn't mean they are not seeking nuclear weapons, and are using the treaty as a shield.

The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - NORTH KOREA'S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY

This is a link from 2003 when North Korea announced their withdrawal from the NPT.

 

[Billo_Really]

Actually in the case for a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation there are six criteria for the attack to be justified, according to the modern just war principle: just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and finally, proportionality.

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, there are only two legal ways one country can attack another:

1. if you yourself are attacked (or the attack is imminent)
2. you receive UNSC authorization to do so

Any other reason is a war of aggression.

And Iran wouldn't be the first country in the world who was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and broke away from it right before they announced they were going to test their first bomb. North Korea is a prime example. So just because they are a party to the NPT doesn't mean they are not seeking nuclear weapons, and are using the treaty as a shield.

The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - NORTH KOREA'S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY

This is a link from 2003 when North Korea announced their withdrawal from the NPT.

Israel hasn't signed that treaty and they won't allow UN inspectors onto their sites. I would be more worried about their nukes than I would about the possibility of Iran's.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Funny you say "attacking Iran is illegal and there are laws against it." Could you provide a link where these laws are published.

Article 51 of the UN Charter.

I am pretty sure if America wants to attack someone, they will do it. Who in the world is going to stop us? We spend more on our military than the next 12 countries combined, INCLUDING Russia and China.

If we attack Iran, it will put us in a direct military confrontation with Russia. And if we fight Russia, we also fight China, because of their defense pact. Those two country's can stop us. In fact, they can barbacue this country in less than a 1/2 hour. Are you willing to risk that?

There is one thing that America should fight for, and that is the security of future generations. Iran with nukes jeopardizes many lives, and if there is something that we can do to prevent it, it is our duty to do so.

We have enough nukes to kill the entire population of the world 37 times.

I think we're pretty secure.

First-There is no way Russia would realistically get involved. Their military has been rapidly corroding over time, and they have even said themselves recently that it was nowhere near the American military. They have stated that they need to invest billions to bring their military up to par with ours. Second- China, will never enter a conflict with the U.S. on behalf of Iran. The rapid changes that China is going through, and with them showing signs of becoming a major world player because of the growing size of their economy, they would hardly do something to jeopardize that. The U.S. and Chinese economies are so heavily dependent on each other now, there is no way they would enter a military conflict with us. Thirdly- For you to say that China and Russia could stop us I implore you to do some research. The Pentagon has recently stated that America already has as many fighter jets as Russia and China combined. That being said, we have started incorporating the F-22 Raptors, which are the most elite fighter jets in the world. They are years ahead of any other jet in the world. America owns the air, and water and has for a long time. You need not play into the fear that America will be overthrown, or beaten by Russia and China. Have faith in what billions upon billions of dollars have gone into in order to protect us.

And yes, we hold 2/3 of all the worlds nukes. However, why would we allow a dangerous country to posses a weapon we are trying to get rid of. Every president sets out the country's nuclear plan for five years. Obama has made it his mission to reduce both the U.S. and Russia's massive arsenals, and also deter any other country from obtaining them. There are already too many countries now in the world that posses nukes. We do not need to have Iran, who is known for sponsoring terrorism, posses such a weapon.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

I think the difference between Iraq and Iran is that when we were going to war with Iraq, there were IAEA reports that were contrary to what the Bush Administration was stating. Its just that those reports never made any wide coverage. Also, there was plenty of "grey" areas surrounding Iraq.

With Iran, there is actual tangible evidence that supports the international community's theory that they are attempting to develop nukes. Their Fordow site is raising huge suspicion in the IAEA since they are denied entrance the this facility. They also have enriched uranium to around 25-35% already. Then Iran announces that they are installing a whole new round (8,000) of centrifuges which is believed to be able to enrich uranium to weapons grade.

I think there are major differences in Iraq and Iran. However, our legitimacy and credibility were damaged with the Iraq war. That is going to make it hard for us to claim legitimacy in attacking Iran. However, I feel that stopping a dangerous group of people from obtaining such a detrimental weapon should be worthy of military force, if all else fails. And it seems that the negotiations, and economic sanctions are not stopping the regime. That only leaves us with one option.

No one has provided any smoking gun showing they've weaponized their nuclear program. The last 3 NIE's all said they haven't. Leon Panetta said they hadn't. Until it can be proven their program has been weaponized, there is no sense in talking about what we're gonna do if that's the case.

It is strange people calling Iran a threat, when they haven't attacked another country in over 200 years.

You are right, there has been no "smoking gun" so to say. But the past 3 IAEA reports you speak of all have said that their reports are inconclusive because they had to tell Iran prior to them arriving in the country (which gives them time to move things around, and alter the soil near the sites so the testing results show lower radiation) and the shadiest move by Iran is strictly forbidding IAEA inspectors to visit their Fordow site. If you had nothing to hide, and your nuclear program was strictly for power and medicinal purposes, why would you deny the very people who could clear your name entrance to an important site? I don't think I need to answer that question, for there is only one answer.

Iran the country as we know now has only been around since 1979. And since their creation they have supported terrorist groups around the world with money and equipment. One of their most well know surrogate groups, I'm sure you've heard of them, Hezbollah, have carried out numerous attacks against Israel. And I think I remember Iran saying it vowed to see the destruction of Israel. So, if we allow them to acquire nukes, and pass them off to their surrogate group(s), we can kiss thousands, even millions of people good-bye. I wouldn't want that blood on my hands, knowing I could have done something to prevent it.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Actually in the case for a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation there are six criteria for the attack to be justified, according to the modern just war principle: just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and finally, proportionality.

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, there are only two legal ways one country can attack another:

1. if you yourself are attacked (or the attack is imminent)
2. you receive UNSC authorization to do so

Any other reason is a war of aggression.

And Iran wouldn't be the first country in the world who was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and broke away from it right before they announced they were going to test their first bomb. North Korea is a prime example. So just because they are a party to the NPT doesn't mean they are not seeking nuclear weapons, and are using the treaty as a shield.

The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - NORTH KOREA'S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY

This is a link from 2003 when North Korea announced their withdrawal from the NPT.

Israel hasn't signed that treaty and they won't allow UN inspectors onto their sites. I would be more worried about their nukes than I would about the possibility of Iran's.

I am telling you what is considered justified in the academic/scholarly world. Now I know everyone would like to think that the UN is the world's government, but the fact remains they fall short of enforcing anything. Let me provide you with an example. When Colin Powell went to the UN to plead the U.S.'s case against Iraq, the UN voted against the U.S. using military force against Iraq. We did not have enough clear evidence to support our claim. Did that stop us? Did China and Russia run into Iraq and protect Saddam? No. Not a single country a party to the UN stepped in our way. We unleashed one of the largest bombing campaigns in history, and not one country stepped in to help Saddam. Now I ask you. What was the purpose of the UN. For if we went their for their approval, got denied, and went to war anyway without any repercussion, wouldn't you agree that the UN failed? Therefore the UN can say what they will about what is "legal" grounds for war. But the fact remains that if Iran shows signs of getting close to obtaining the most dangerous weapon known to man, we will stop them.

 

[Billo_Really]

I am telling you what is considered justified in the academic/scholarly world. Now I know everyone would like to think that the UN is the world's government, but the fact remains they fall short of enforcing anything. Let me provide you with an example. When Colin Powell went to the UN to plead the U.S.'s case against Iraq, the UN voted against the U.S. using military force against Iraq. We did not have enough clear evidence to support our claim. Did that stop us? Did China and Russia run into Iraq and protect Saddam? No. Not a single country a party to the UN stepped in our way. We unleashed one of the largest bombing campaigns in history, and not one country stepped in to help Saddam. Now I ask you. What was the purpose of the UN. For if we went their for their approval, got denied, and went to war anyway without any repercussion, wouldn't you agree that the UN failed? Therefore the UN can say what they will about what is "legal" grounds for war. But the fact remains that if Iran shows signs of getting close to obtaining the most dangerous weapon known to man, we will stop them.

The trouble is, us going into Iraq, is no different that the German's invading Poland. And ever since the end of WWII, wars of aggression have been codified as crimes against humanity. Have you heard of the Nuremberg Principles? Well, we co-authored those. How does that make us look by violating an international law we co-wrote?

The fact is, we are a nation based on the rule of law. That is part of what makes up being an American. That's who we are. When you respect the law, you are demonstrating American values. People that advocate lawlessness, might as well be German.

Article 51, is a treaty Congress ratified. That means it carry's the same weight as the US Constitution. And by violating that, we violated the Constitution.

The worst thing about the Iraq war is that we're going to whind up payine over $6 trillion tax payer dollars on this bullshit war, without getting anything in return.

 

[ima]

Iran already kicked our ass TWICE!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mess with Iran, they are bad people.

 

[Bill Angel]

Bill Angel, ill say it again, America just want to fuck them up simply because we don't like them.
These fuckers from Iran here in the United States are the most irritating dumb fucks of the land, but they are protected by laws because there feet are on American soil, so we cant kill them or beat and abuse them here, but we sure can fuck them up over there, no laws against that.
Almost everyone in America has had some kind of dealing or altercation with an Iranian here in America .................. but we must exercise restraint or go to jail, we want revenge, and we will have it.

I believe that there is evidence to refute categorical assertions that Iranians in the USA are "irritating dumb fucks".

List of Iranian Americans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The link is to a list of notable Iranian-Americans of all Iranian ethnic backgrounds, including both original immigrants who obtained American citizenship and their American descendants.

 

[hoosier88]

Iran may be a direct threat to Israel. Certainly their rhetoric is aimed @ Israel & the US - but we are far away, & Iran simply doesn't have a weapons delivery system @ this point. Nor do they have the miniaturized nuke that would need to sit atop an ICBM.

We - the US & UK - helped create the Ayatollah regime in Iran. We deposed a freely elected nationalist PM who nationalized the UK oil concession. & we overthrew the PM so that UK could have "its" oil.

If Iran has become a rogue regime, it's because the League of Nations & UN failed them. Once their PM was overthrown, the Iranians understood their position. (The US had been admired throughout the Middle East, up to that point.) The Israelis have helped train the Islamists - with the terrorist campaign against the UK & UN in Palestine, the various wars & campaigns in Lebanon & elsewhere, the strikes @ Syrian & Iraqi reactors, targeted assassinations & on & on.

I don't see the US risking a general war in the defense of Israel. The parties in the Middle East need to come to some reasonable resolution of their issues.

 

[ima]

An Iran-Israel all out war would make for good TV.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

I am telling you what is considered justified in the academic/scholarly world. Now I know everyone would like to think that the UN is the world's government, but the fact remains they fall short of enforcing anything. Let me provide you with an example. When Colin Powell went to the UN to plead the U.S.'s case against Iraq, the UN voted against the U.S. using military force against Iraq. We did not have enough clear evidence to support our claim. Did that stop us? Did China and Russia run into Iraq and protect Saddam? No. Not a single country a party to the UN stepped in our way. We unleashed one of the largest bombing campaigns in history, and not one country stepped in to help Saddam. Now I ask you. What was the purpose of the UN. For if we went their for their approval, got denied, and went to war anyway without any repercussion, wouldn't you agree that the UN failed? Therefore the UN can say what they will about what is "legal" grounds for war. But the fact remains that if Iran shows signs of getting close to obtaining the most dangerous weapon known to man, we will stop them.

The trouble is, us going into Iraq, is no different that the German's invading Poland. And ever since the end of WWII, wars of aggression have been codified as crimes against humanity. Have you heard of the Nuremberg Principles? Well, we co-authored those. How does that make us look by violating an international law we co-wrote?

The fact is, we are a nation based on the rule of law. That is part of what makes up being an American. That's who we are. When you respect the law, you are demonstrating American values. People that advocate lawlessness, might as well be German.

Article 51, is a treaty Congress ratified. That means it carry's the same weight as the US Constitution. And by violating that, we violated the Constitution.

The worst thing about the Iraq war is that we're going to whind up payine over $6 trillion tax payer dollars on this bullshit war, without getting anything in return.

I would be extremely careful comparing a treaty that Congress ratified to the U.S. Constitution. They are far from the same.

 

[varelse]

Not really. Treaties become the law of the land, arguably equal to- or even superseding- COTUS, as the United States lose the ability to pass any law contrary to that treaty- for example, we can't use hollowpoints in war because we agreed to treaties prohibiting it

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Not really. Treaties become the law of the land, arguably equal to- or even superseding- COTUS, as the United States lose the ability to pass any law contrary to that treaty- for example, we can't use hollowpoints in war because we agreed to treaties prohibiting it

I beg to differ. Treaties can be nullified, sometimes with ease. Try and nullify the Constitution, or even a part of it, and see what happens lol!

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Iran already kicked our ass TWICE!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mess with Iran, they are bad people.

Don't know what drugs you are on but Iran has never "kicked our ass" lol

 

[varelse]

Try and nullify the Constitution, or even a part of it, and see what happens lol!

Have you recently tried making and selling firearms within state?

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Try and nullify the Constitution, or even a part of it, and see what happens lol!

Have you recently tried making and selling firearms within state?

Look I am a huge gun supporter. I grew up hunting, and shooting guns. And still, I agree with most of the laws they are trying to pass. I'm sorry but civilians should not be able to buy AR-15's with 50 round mags. I would propose to the feds that licensed gun ranges could carry the "assault weapons" and high round mags so if you wanted to shoot one, you could still do so. Also, the feds are proposing stricter background checks. What a violation of our 2nd Amendment (sarcasm). I am surprised they didn't have more thorough background checks already. Where in the new laws or restrictions (whatever you want to call it), is the government saying citizens cannot buy or own firearms? When our country has some of the highest gun-related crimes in the world, I would say we need to do something. Not every citizen in our country is fit to own a firearm, and I am not sad to say that.

But in my opinion, the government is using the band-aid approach where they try and do a a "quick fix" and think that is going to solve the problem. You can ban certain guns and mags, but you can't ban crazy. Even if we ban all firearms in the country, people are still going to find other means for killing people. Ban guns, people will start using bombs or other tools. So obviously banning the instrument used to commit murder will not get rid of why people want to kill. We need to address why there are people, especially kids out there, that are willing to kill as many people as they can before they themselves get killed.

And in answer to your question, yes, I just recently bought a new Remington 12-guage shotgun. Wasn't that hard. I had to wait longer than 15 minutes, but luckily I don't get mad at that.

 

[Billo_Really]

I would be extremely careful comparing a treaty that Congress ratified to the U.S. Constitution. They are far from the same.

I'm not comparing anything! The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution itself say's any treaty ratified by Congress shall be given the same weight as the Supreme Law of the Land. That's what it say's. Article 51 has been ratified by Congress. That treaty, has the same weight as the Constitution. And in that light, you can't just arbitrarily disregard it when convenient. In order to change anything in the Constitution, you have to have a Constitutional Convention. Congress can't just enact a law (or repeal one) that is un-Constitutional.

In addition to Article 51, there are the Nuremberg Principles, which makes a war of aggression, the highest crime a nation could commit. And a "war of choice", is a "war of aggression". You do not "choose" to go to war. That's what the nazis did. And that's why it's illegal. You go to war because you have no other choice. And as citizens, we owe it to the troops to make sure that when we put them in harms way, we only do so as a last resort.

BTW, we co-authored the Nuremberg Principles and most of the UN Charter. It doesn't reflect well on us not following laws we co-wrote.

 

[Billo_Really]

An Iran-Israel all out war would make for good TV.

They should have a reality show of all the underground party's in Iran. 70% of the population is under 30 and as the following video shows, they're no different than we were in our 20's.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulm4Gj406E8]illegal Rave Party in Iran - YouTube[/ame]

 

[WethePeopleUS]

I would be extremely careful comparing a treaty that Congress ratified to the U.S. Constitution. They are far from the same.

I'm not comparing anything! The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution itself say's any treaty ratified by Congress shall be given the same weight as the Supreme Law of the Land. That's what it say's. Article 51 has been ratified by Congress. That treaty, has the same weight as the Constitution. And in that light, you can't just arbitrarily disregard it when convenient. In order to change anything in the Constitution, you have to have a Constitutional Convention. Congress can't just enact a law (or repeal one) that is un-Constitutional.

In addition to Article 51, there are the Nuremberg Principles, which makes a war of aggression, the highest crime a nation could commit. And a "war of choice", is a "war of aggression". You do not "choose" to go to war. That's what the nazis did. And that's why it's illegal. You go to war because you have no other choice. And as citizens, we owe it to the troops to make sure that when we put them in harms way, we only do so as a last resort.

BTW, we co-authored the Nuremberg Principles and most of the UN Charter. It doesn't reflect well on us not following laws we co-wrote.

Yea I understand all of that, but you seem to live in an "ideal" kind of world. I see you saying a lot of things we hypothetically cannot do. That would be great if everyone, including ourselves, followed the rules. However that is far from the reality of the situation. For example, when we started fighting the guerrilla campaign in Iraq, we starting committing violations of the Geneva Convention. We were torturing people, killing indiscriminately, and other violations. How we got away with this without any of our troops or senior officials getting tried in an international court is by saying that we were fighting an enemy that did not abide by the Geneva Convention, so in turn we did not have to follow it. We said we were not going to afford the enemy a luxury they did not afford us. Nobody in the international community argued to loud. When Bush and his administration went to war with Iraq, which was clearly a war of aggression, nobody in his administration, including Bush himself, got tried for violation of international law. So you see my friend, in reality we lay out the laws for us and the rest of the world to follow, and we chose to follow them when it best suits us. Military areas is not the only place we do what we want, when we want. Look at the case where Brazil sued the U.S. at the World Trade Organization over US cotton farmers getting favored in the world market. We really just do what we want. Here is a link to that story if you get bored one day. Its long and wordy lol:

WTO | dispute settlement - the disputes - DS267

 

[Billo_Really]

Yea I understand all of that, but you seem to live in an "ideal" kind of world. I see you saying a lot of things we hypothetically cannot do. That would be great if everyone, including ourselves, followed the rules.

I look at it from the point that we are a country based on the rule of law.

So it freaks me out when we act so hypocritically about it.

However that is far from the reality of the situation.

Sad, but true.

For example, when we started fighting the guerrilla campaign in Iraq, we starting committing violations of the Geneva Convention. We were torturing people, killing indiscriminately, and other violations. How we got away with this without any of our troops or senior officials getting tried in an international court is by saying that we were fighting an enemy that did not abide by the Geneva Convention, so in turn we did not have to follow it. We said we were not going to afford the enemy a luxury they did not afford us.

I know that's what went down, but we were required to abide by the GC. All war crimes are treated as stand alone issues. It's done deliberately to prevent the argument you just used. According to IHL, just because one side commits war crimes, that doesn't give the other side the right to commit them as well.

Nobody in the international community argued to loud.

Oh they did. The media didn't cover much of it.

When Bush and his administration went to war with Iraq, which was clearly a war of aggression, nobody in his administration, including Bush himself, got tried for violation of international law.

He was convicted in a Malaysian tribunal. But it was just ceremonial and had no teeth to it.

Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes in Malaysia Tribunal: Complete Text of Judgment

So you see my friend, in reality we lay out the laws for us and the rest of the world to follow, and we chose to follow them when it best suits us.

I hate to agree with that, but I do.

Military areas is not the only place we do what we want, when we want. Look at the case where Brazil sued the U.S. at the World Trade Organization over US cotton farmers getting favored in the world market. We really just do what we want. Here is a link to that story if you get bored one day. Its long and wordy lol:

WTO | dispute settlement - the disputes - DS267

We don't have too much clout in the WTO. They fuck us a lot!