Military Build Up in the Gulf

[scenecreamer]

shhhhhhhhhhhhhh...don talk sense. kneejerk reactions only please!

this thread is useless without US-bashing.

Never mind dear. One day you'll grow up and you'll realise the country of which you are a citizen is capable of some seriously despicable shit.

don't take that condescendng tone with me you sanctimonious prick.

 

[Evo49]

Obviously we disagree.

Regardless of your statement as to evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran - it would seem the entire western world is convinced of Iran's intent to do so, thus sanctions imposed by the UN, USA, EU. Obviously the aim being to prevent this happening. The negotiations continue, the sanctions imposed - or possible removal of the sanctions a key issue.

Therefore American involvement to help prevent any Iranian retaliation to sanctions in the Straits of Hormuz seems entirely reasonable. Unlikely that the Iranians would risk the humiliation of a swift targeted response, the country is unstable already.

Israel would never allow Iran to achieve a nuclear capability - I would prefer strict sanctions policed by a show of American power than the reaction to a targeted Israeli military strike.

Yes, obviously.

Right. So the west has the right to impose sanctions without evidence of wrongdoing... Fucking hell, thoughtcrime, fantastic. You do know the Iranians can just withdraw from the NPT and then it doesn't even have to comply legally? Guess who's not a NPT signatory and doesn't allow any inspections? What action is taken against Israel? None. That this doesn't set alarm bells in your head says everything about your support for western imperialism. You believe the west has more rights than Iran.

Again, you are standing up for a bully's right to bully, and bully in Israel's favour, when Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons whose facilities are not observed by the IAEA.

Israel has no choice in the matter. Israel can only delay a nuclear weapon by bombing Iran. If Iran decides to go ahead, it can build deep under the ground in parts of Iran inaccessible to both Israeli aircraft and bunker busters. If they did strike, Iran will certainly build. Again, they know this, or certainly they have calculated this. Permanent occupation is the only way to ensure against it and Israel is nowhere near strong enough to achieve that. The United States probably isn't.

I would argue the West has the right to impose sanctions based upon Iranian non-compliance with IAEA inspection requests which pertain to various nuclear facilities in Iran. I suspect they would never do this as sanctions would then remain or even become more severe, justified by the aim of nuclear non-proliferation. This isn't "bullying" in my opinion but rather legitimate action to prevent hostile states from gaining nuclear weapons capability.

Israel is an admitted double standard and I wouldn't even try to pretend otherwise. I would only say proliferation of nuclear weapons to allies of the west does not pose the same threat and should be addressed differently.

Israel could try and prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons capability in various ways, no doubt the high fatality rate of Iranian nuclear scientists over the years indicates one of them. Other ways would be sponsoring opposition elements in Iran and encouragement of existing sanctions etc..

Depending on your point of view this is "bullying" / "western imperialism" or in my point of view - justified intervention to prevent a powerful nation hostile to western interests attaining the ability to seriously threaten world stability.

Ground occupation would be a bloodbath but I don't believe anyone other than a complete nutcase would want that and, as I stated originally, in my opinion is what any increased American presence in the Gulf is designed to prevent.

 

[Skashion]

don't take that condescendng tone with me you sanctimonious prick.

That's condescending with an i.

 

[Skashion]

I would argue the West has the right to impose sanctions based upon Iranian non-compliance with IAEA inspection requests which pertain to various nuclear facilities in Iran. I suspect they would never do this as sanctions would then remain or even become more severe, justified by the aim of nuclear non-proliferation. This isn't "bullying" in my opinion but rather legitimate action to prevent hostile states from gaining nuclear weapons capability.

Israel is an admitted double standard and I wouldn't even try to pretend otherwise. I would only say proliferation of nuclear weapons to allies of the west does not pose the same threat and should be addressed differently.

Israel could try and prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons capability in various ways, no doubt the high fatality rate of Iranian nuclear scientists over the years indicates one of them. Other ways would be sponsoring opposition elements in Iran and encouragement of existing sanctions etc..

Depending on your point of view this is "bullying" / "western imperialism" or in my point of view - justified intervention to prevent a powerful nation hostile to western interests attaining the ability to seriously threaten world stability.

Ground occupation would be a bloodbath but I don't believe anyone other than a complete nutcase would want that and, as I stated originally, in my opinion is what any increased American presence in the Gulf is designed to prevent.

At least you admit you hold a double-standard. Iran poses no threat to the west. The west poses a threat to Iran. That you'd see nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers surrounding Iran, and still claim Iran is the aggressor shows just how biased you are.

Israel cannot do it. Senior IDF figures have admitted as much.

I agree that Iran gaining a nuclear weapon would threaten not world stability but regional stability certainly. It would be preferable if Iran did not seek nuclear weapons. However, Iran has equal rights with other countries (from a legal and moral perspective) and so should be allowed them without threat of violence if it does want them. Again, your view is tainted by supposed western interests though. You're not seeing the situation based on fairness and equality.

US military presence is intended to prevent US military presence? Oh, for a minute there I thought whilst being a despicable **** who believes Iranian lives are worth less than those of the west, you were actually being logical within the confines of racism. Apologies for this error.

 

[allan harper]

Surely the US can't afford another war?

It's ok, Israel will happily fund them.

So Israel is bankrolling the US?
Erm,ok...

Ffs just fuck off.

 

[lloydie]

shhhhhhhhhhhhhh...don talk sense. kneejerk reactions only please!

this thread is useless without US-bashing.

Never mind dear. One day you'll grow up and you'll realise the country of which you are a citizen is capable of some seriously despicable shit.

don't take that condescendng tone with me you sanctimonious prick.

Not that it's any of my business but before I fetch popcorn cat I'd just point out that you started it.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

It's ok, Israel will happily fund them.

So Israel is bankrolling the US?
Erm,ok...

Ffs just fuck off.

You really haven't got the hang of this internet debating thing,have you?
You see,anyone reading this may conclude that you are just not very bright.

 

[Skashion]

You really haven't got the hang of this internet debating thing,have you?
You see,anyone reading this may conclude that you are just not very bright.

Lay off NF, allan's a good bloke. I don't believe his posts are supposed to be serious debate.

 

[stonerblue]

In reply to the OP, I'd say any increase of American military power in that part of the world would be done with the aim of maintaining the peace.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in reply to United Nations sanctions imposed in response to its nuclear program. Increased American presence would deter this action and the risk of escalation it would entail.

America has also persuaded Israel against any military action against Iran, for now at least, whilst sanctions are given time to work. Again, increased American forces in the area may give Israel the confidence to "wait it out", and not take action unilaterally against a nation developing nuclear weapons who has previously stated it wished to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

So, in my opinion, America using its power to contain a volatile situation - we should probably be grateful.

Keeping the peace my arse

Sanctions kill innocent civilians
And do the US only follow UN laws when it suits them?

 

[Evo49]

I would argue the West has the right to impose sanctions based upon Iranian non-compliance with IAEA inspection requests which pertain to various nuclear facilities in Iran. I suspect they would never do this as sanctions would then remain or even become more severe, justified by the aim of nuclear non-proliferation. This isn't "bullying" in my opinion but rather legitimate action to prevent hostile states from gaining nuclear weapons capability.

Israel is an admitted double standard and I wouldn't even try to pretend otherwise. I would only say proliferation of nuclear weapons to allies of the west does not pose the same threat and should be addressed differently.

Israel could try and prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons capability in various ways, no doubt the high fatality rate of Iranian nuclear scientists over the years indicates one of them. Other ways would be sponsoring opposition elements in Iran and encouragement of existing sanctions etc..

Depending on your point of view this is "bullying" / "western imperialism" or in my point of view - justified intervention to prevent a powerful nation hostile to western interests attaining the ability to seriously threaten world stability.

Ground occupation would be a bloodbath but I don't believe anyone other than a complete nutcase would want that and, as I stated originally, in my opinion is what any increased American presence in the Gulf is designed to prevent.

At least you admit you hold a double-standard. Iran poses no threat to the west. The west poses a threat to Iran. That you'd see nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers surrounding Iran, and still claim Iran is the aggressor shows just how biased you are.

Israel cannot do it. Senior IDF figures have admitted as much.

I agree that Iran gaining a nuclear weapon would threaten not world stability but regional stability certainly. It would be preferable if Iran did not seek nuclear weapons. However, Iran has equal rights with other countries (from a legal and moral perspective) and so should be allowed them without threat of violence if it does want them. Again, your view is tainted by supposed western interests though. You're not seeing the situation based on fairness and equality.

US military presence is intended to prevent US military presence? Oh, for a minute there I thought whilst being a despicable **** who believes Iranian lives are worth less than those of the west, you were actually being logical within the confines of racism. Apologies for this error.

You seem to contradict yourself. You cannot say that Iran poses no threat to the west and then go on to say it would pose a threat to regional stability, as any conflict in that region would have worldwide ramifications.

Iran certainly has equal rights from a legal and moral perspective - however I take the pragmatic approach that preventing that regime from attaining nuclear weapons capability is legitimate in the wider interest.

All life is precious - Iranian lives as precious as any other so I agree in any action which would prevent a wider conflict - which I believe the Wests policy in that region is designed to achieve.

(I'll ignore the comments "despicable ****" and "racist" as the rest of your argument is well reasoned and informed - although I'd disagree with various points. Seems we both want a peaceful outcome but disagree on how to achieve it)