Military Build Up in the Gulf

[allan harper]

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.

And if you ever find me getting involved in a serious debate, ban me. Thank you.

 

[Evo49]

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?

Agreed, sanctions are harsh and affect innocent people which is hard to justify - even if in place with legitimate intentions they are damaging.

I'd say most nations follow the rules only when it suits them, the US in particular.

Starting to feel like an American Government spokesman here which is a pretty awful predicament! I certainly don't agree with everything they, just don't think they want a war with Iran.

 

[Skashion]

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)

Iran does pose no threat to the west. The west is not in the region, apart from Israel - which already has second-strike capability. It is the UAE and Saudi Arabia that will seek nuclear weapons if Iran gets them. For that reason, I think Iran should opt against it and I think it will do - whilst leaving the door open just in case.

You do not believe Iran is equal. Do not even adopt that pretence. You cannot believe that if you think it is ok for nuclear weapons states with all the power to threaten and sanction one which doesn't. That is not equality.

What conflict would otherwise happen. Iran cannot invade Israel. Israel cannot invade Iran. If Iran were to use nuclear weapons against Israel, Israel could wipe it off the map. No conflict is being prevented. One is being initiated.

I stand by my comments. Anyone who thinks a life in another country is worth less than one in their own is a racist. You clearly believe that because you think it's ok for nuclear-armed countries to threaten countries without nuclear weapons over the issue of acquiring nuclear weapons. The only way this is not true of you is if you say the presence should be symbolic only and shouldn't be used unless it's attacked, and to be honest, I wouldn't believe the US if it did claim it was attacked because the United States has a history of false flag incidents. I've made reference to Vietnam already, here's another; Gulf of Tonkin. In fact, let's discuss your perspective on things shall we. Whilst obviously your perspective is biased bollocks, let's apply your own logic. Right, so far, you've suggested it is Iran that is hostile, Iran is the threat, Iran is the loose cannon. Yet somehow you don't think increased US presence in the area is provocative and less likely to lead to a peaceful solution? How does that work exactly?

 

[scenecreamer]

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?

Agreed, sanctions are harsh and affect innocent people which is hard to justify - even if in place with legitimate intentions they are damaging.

I'd say most nations follow the rules only when it suits them, the US in particular.

Starting to feel like an American Government spokesman here which is a pretty awful predicament! I certainly don't agree with everything they, just don't think they want a war with Iran.

I implore you, get out now! no good will come of this.

you have been labeled a racist, imperialist, wamongerer. nothing you can say will change that perception.

its sad, really....

 

[Skashion]

you have been labeled a racist, imperialist, wamongerer. nothing you can say will change that perception.

1/3, still, I expect that's better than what you're used to.

 

[Evo49]

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)

Iran does pose no threat to the west. The west is not in the region, apart from Israel - which already has second-strike capability. It is the UAE and Saudi Arabia that will seek nuclear weapons if Iran gets them. For that reason, I think Iran should opt against it and I think it will do - whilst leaving the door open just in case.

You do not believe Iran is equal. Do not even adopt that pretence. You cannot believe that if you think it is ok for nuclear weapons states with all the power to threaten and sanction one which doesn't. That is not equality.

What conflict would otherwise happen. Iran cannot invade Israel. Israel cannot invade Iran. If Iran were to use nuclear weapons against Israel, Israel could wipe it off the map. No conflict is being prevented. One is being initiated.

I stand by my comments. Anyone who thinks a life in another country is worth less than one in their own is a racist. You clearly believe that because you think it's ok for nuclear-armed countries to threaten countries without nuclear weapons over the issue of acquiring nuclear weapons. The only way this is not true of you is if you say the presence should be symbolic only and shouldn't be used unless it's attacked, and to be honest, I wouldn't believe the US if it did claim it was attacked because the United States has a history of false flag incidents. I've made reference to Vietnam already, here's another; Gulf of Tonkin. In fact, let's discuss your perspective on things shall we. Whilst obviously your perspective is biased bollocks, let's apply your own logic. Right, so far, you've suggested it is Iran that is hostile, Iran is the threat, Iran is the loose cannon. Yet somehow you don't think increased US presence in the area is provocative and less likely to lead to a peaceful solution? How does that work exactly?

Happy to continue the debate as you obviously know your stuff and can argue a position with aplomb - however not happy with the racist accusations.

I said on my last post I consider ALL LIFE EQUALLY PRECIOUS. If we can agree at least this point and drop the racist accusations I'll debate my point of view.

I find racism of any kind extremely offensive, as you no doubt you do, and it shouldn't be a term used lightly. Hope you see my point of view on this.

 

[Skashion]

Happy to continue the debate as you obviously know your stuff and can argue a position with aplomb - however not happy with the racist accusations.

I said on my last post I consider ALL LIFE EQUALLY PRECIOUS. If we can agree at least this point and drop the racist accusations I'll debate my point of view.

I find racism of any kind extremely offensive, as you no doubt you do, and it shouldn't be a term used lightly. Hope you see my point of view on this.

I'll apologise for calling you a racist IF you say no military action should be taken against Iran over this. Not one Iranian should die over this. If you agree with that statement, I'll apologise.

 

[Evo49]

Keeping the peace my arse

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

Agreed, sanctions are harsh and affect innocent people which is hard to justify - even if in place with legitimate intentions they are damaging.

I'd say most nations follow the rules only when it suits them, the US in particular.

Starting to feel like an American Government spokesman here which is a pretty awful predicament! I certainly don't agree with everything they, just don't think they want a war with Iran.

I implore you, get out now! no good will come of this.

you have been labeled a racist, imperialist, wamongerer. nothing you can say will change that perception.

its sad, really....

completely wrong also.....! only joined the forum to read about City - never envisaged reading about foreskins / higgs boson / wanking in another persons home / american foreign policy etc.. guess you just get drawn in.....<br /><br />-- Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:05 am --<br /><br />

Happy to continue the debate as you obviously know your stuff and can argue a position with aplomb - however not happy with the racist accusations.

I said on my last post I consider ALL LIFE EQUALLY PRECIOUS. If we can agree at least this point and drop the racist accusations I'll debate my point of view.

I find racism of any kind extremely offensive, as you no doubt you do, and it shouldn't be a term used lightly. Hope you see my point of view on this.

I'll apologise for calling you a racist IF you say no military action should be taken against Iran over this. Not one Iranian should die over this. If you agree with that statement, I'll apologise.

Agreed. A peaceful outcome is the only legitimate aim any foreign policy.

 

[Skashion]

Agreed. A peaceful outcome is the only legitimate aim any foreign policy.

Fair enough. I apologise unreservedly for calling you a racist.

 

[Evo49]

Agreed. A peaceful outcome is the only legitimate aim any foreign policy.

Fair enough. I apologise unreservedly for calling you a racist.

Apology accepted and appreciated.