 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:22
|
|
Aye whats the famous quote concerning bombing **** to the ground but if you don't have the troops you can't hold the ground?
quote:
Yeah, but let's face it. Aside from the U.S., who really does? |
True enough.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:22
|
|
Pax: 0/10. Do your trolling earlier in the day, it'll make for some better quality in your posting.
My question is--why does Europe see it in their interest to negotiate with Iran? As far as I can see, negotations wouldn't lead anywhere, given that Iran isn't exactly the most trustworthy and benevolent of nations. There's the reason of 'being different to America', but that seems very weak, especially since Iran country is about to get -nukes- and is quite a dangerous place already. Thoughts?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If it's against your vaunted international law, do something about it. Otherwise, it's not really against the law, is it?
|
There were many attempts to do it, by using UN-Resolution.
But almost everytime a draft for Resolution against Israel is brought before the Security Council it is stopped by the US using their Veto Rights
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:22
|
|
Agathon--you're right that the situation wouldn't seem to change so much if Iran had nuclear weapons. However, this is because the situation at present is a result of inaction (for whatever reason, perhaps Ned's suggestion of trying to prevent war) by the USA and European countries such as France or Germany. Theoretically, these countries could pressure Iran (or attack it, whatever) and thereby force it to cease supporting terrorists.
If Iran receives nukes, the amount of pressure that Europe and the USA could place on it is far decreased. Regime change would no longer be an option, as Iran would be likely to attempt at a nuke at someone--not necessarily Israel, but perhaps even places in Europe.
Imran: you make a good point; the chances of outright war with Arab nations such as Syria or Saudi Arabia do increase after this instance. However, keep in mind that it is not in these regimes' interest to go to war with Israel. They certainly didn't want to in 81', and Israel is more powerful militarily than it was back then. At the same time, the only thing Syria's army has been procuring is rust. Saudi Arabia is unlikely to try anything-they're unstable enough as it is (and I don't think I have an army to speak of). Iraq has no army to speak of anymore (as if it had one before the war either).
Egypt is a possible threat in this regard, but it is at peace with Israel as well, and declaring war won't win any brownie points with Europe and the USA.
Iran has no border with Israel and would have to use another country to get to Israel with an army. I doubt Syria would risk the displeasure of America by allowing Iranian troops through. I also doubt Iran's army is in any way competent or a viable threat against Israel.
The way it could be said is this: if the Arab countries were capable of putting up a fight and winning against Israel, they would have tried it already. However, they appear to have learnt from history and have settled for supporting terrorism instead.
Even if -all- of them attacked, the result would be a lackluster assault or even a defense (given Israel's penchant for pre emptive strikes); that in turn would result in cease fires as soon as Israel got close to the Arab capitals.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-09-2004 05:07
|