What should be done about IRAN?

Important Links

NationStates Region
Regional Channel
Law Library
Founderless Regions Alliance
GRA Shop
Active Topics

Regional Summary

Founded - 30 April 2005
Population - 165 Nations
World Ranking - 61
Regional Power - High

Government of the Global Right Alliance

Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate
Pidgeon Island

Members of the Committee
TBA

World Assembly Delegate
Angusp (aka Bodegraven)

High General of the GRADF
Joe Bobs

Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums!

Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register.

Join our Community

Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system.

I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way.

Getting Started

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Pages:
1
2

What should be done about IRAN?
Topic Started: Apr 26 2006, 12:19 AM (233 Views)
Athiestica	Apr 26 2006, 12:19 AM Post #1
Citizen Posts: 1,726 Group: Resident Member #307 Joined: April 18, 2006	What should be done?



Calculators	Apr 26 2006, 04:19 PM Post #2
How very dare you Posts: 5,815 Group: Resident Member #257 Joined: March 9, 2006	sit an watch what happen on the news and if something bad happens blame somebody else for not doing anything to help.



U-ropa	Apr 26 2006, 04:23 PM Post #3
Unregistered	I dont know, but i do know what should be done to people who put things in CAPS to emphasise points.
Unregistered


Calculators	Apr 26 2006, 04:24 PM Post #4
How very dare you Posts: 5,815 Group: Resident Member #257 Joined: March 9, 2006	what?



The Ruescher Empire	Apr 26 2006, 05:45 PM Post #5
Buh Posts: 8,274 Group: Resident Member #184 Joined: January 5, 2006	I believe the country should be able to have a civilian nuclear program. It is wrong to impose ourselves on any nation that wish to have similar civilian technology as our own. Of course i believe we should plan for attack on the country and very closely watch all uranium in the country. But besides that they should be left to their own devices.



Joe Bobs	Apr 26 2006, 06:52 PM Post #6
GRADF High General \| FRA Arch Chancellor Posts: 10,045 Group: The Architect Member #179 Joined: January 3, 2006 Nation name: Joe Bobs	Quote: I believe the country should be able to have a civilian nuclear program. It is wrong to impose ourselves on any nation that wish to have similar civilian technology as our own. See, the problem with this view, and many other people's views, is that it is a judgement based on morals, not LAW (yes, that was deliberate U-ropa ). The Nuclear Treaty Iran signed states that they may not enrich uranium in Iran. Hence Russia's deal was perfect for them, but they rejected Russia's deal. If they only wanted a civilian nucler program, they'd have accepted Russia's deal. Morally, then it is of course hypocritical for the US and Britain to tell Iran they can't have the same advantages, but legally they are on firm ground. I am still against any invasion, but I don't think diplomatic methods will work, as Iran has enough oil to whoop Terracotta Pie in the economic field. Do military might may be the only way. If so, let's hope for effective air strikes that hit their targets and may minimise civilian casualties.



hyfe	Apr 26 2006, 10:56 PM Post #7
Raw Posts: 1 Group: Resident Member #239 Joined: February 27, 2006	Joe Bobs Apr 26 2006, 05:52 PM See, the problem with this view, and many other people's views, is that it is a judgement based on morals, not LAW (yes, that was deliberate U-ropa ). The Nuclear Treaty Iran signed states that they may not enrich uranium in Iran. Based on Law? If breaking any random treaty is grounds for being invaded, lots of countries are valid targets (included the US). If you want to keep a "legal" basis, then the relevant question is "What control mechanisms / penalties did the Non-profliation treaty stipulate?". Not that I have any clue, but I strongly suspect 'None'.. and hence, this again becomes a moral question.. Especially considering how the west hasn't disarmed to the extent we promised to. Besides, if you were Muslim and was within easy missile range of an as rabid country as Israel the 'Screw the non-profilation treaty' Nuclear Power, wouldn't you be worried too? I find the notion that something 'should be done' ridicilous to begin with. We already let the cat out of the bag with Isreal, Pakistan and India (two of which I would describe as reasonably rabid), and trying to stuff it back in is only going to cause more harm than good. If they want really, really want, they will get their Nuclear Weapons either way.



Calculators	Apr 26 2006, 11:01 PM Post #8
How very dare you Posts: 5,815 Group: Resident Member #257 Joined: March 9, 2006	Hi hyfe post in the intro forums so we can formally grete you to the region



Arov	Apr 28 2006, 01:19 PM Post #9
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law Posts: 2,351 Group: Resident Member #156 Joined: November 22, 2005	Well, I'm positive that Iran is not complying with the IAEA specifically so the US will go to war with it, in which case Iran will have an excuse to invade Iraq, again, slaughtering US and Iraqi forces en-masse and taking over a good portion of land! Hooray!



Arov	Apr 29 2006, 10:09 PM Post #10
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law Posts: 2,351 Group: Resident Member #156 Joined: November 22, 2005	Will anybody respond?



Joe Bobs	Apr 29 2006, 10:26 PM Post #11
GRADF High General \| FRA Arch Chancellor Posts: 10,045 Group: The Architect Member #179 Joined: January 3, 2006 Nation name: Joe Bobs	Quote: Based on Law? If breaking any random treaty is grounds for being invaded, lots of countries are valid targets (included the US). If you want to keep a "legal" basis, then the relevant question is "What control mechanisms / penalties did the Non-profliation treaty stipulate?". Not that I have any clue, but I strongly suspect 'None'.. and hence, this again becomes a moral question.. Especially considering how the west hasn't disarmed to the extent we promised to. Well I do, I read it. It actually suggests referral to the Security Council, which is exactly what the US has done. Well, Iran has been "reported" instead of "referred" as Russia didn't want to be so hasty. I hate Bush and imperialist America more than anyone else, all I'm saying is that, for once, Bush has the law on his side. I'm trying to stop bandwagon liberalism taking off by reminding people that the law is on the side of the US, not Iran. The real issue, in my mind, is thus: Why was Iran so stupid to sign a treaty they knew they would end up breaking?"



Arov	Apr 30 2006, 12:28 AM Post #12
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law Posts: 2,351 Group: Resident Member #156 Joined: November 22, 2005	Joe Bobs Apr 29 2006, 09:26 PM Well I do, I read it. It actually suggests referral to the Security Council, which is exactly what the US has done. Well, Iran has been "reported" instead of "referred" as Russia didn't want to be so hasty. I hate Bush and imperialist America more than anyone else, all I'm saying is that, for once, Bush has the law on his side. I'm trying to stop bandwagon liberalism taking off by reminding people that the law is on the side of the US, not Iran. The real issue, in my mind, is thus: Why was Iran so stupid to sign a treaty they knew they would end up breaking?" To keep the West from having a legal basis to take military action against it, perhaps?



VincentDantes	Apr 30 2006, 01:00 AM Post #13
Independant by Cynicism Posts: 2,175 Group: Resident Member #277 Joined: March 26, 2006	Why they signed it? Its happened before, with other countries like Hitler telling Stalin he won't attack him and signing a treaty so Stalin will feel secure and comfortable and won't attack Hitler and then when he's nice and cozy Hitler attacks. [There�s a lot more to that and motives were a bit different but the same tactic.] Iran signed it so that the west doesn't watch them like a hawk and that the west feels reassured and secure that Iran won't build nuclear weapons. This false feeling of security in turn allows Iran time and preparation to initiate a program and progress with it as much as they can before the western nuclear watch dogs start poking their nose around once again. It's like trying to cheat on a test you cheat fast and try and get as much done as possible before the teacher looks your way or passes by you. If you're lucky you get enough of it done that you can figure out the rest yourself [In terms of Iran this means getting enough of the program done that they can start producing nukes], or if you're slow and you have to stop cheating prematurely you don't get enough done and you eventually get caught and fail and then try and stall and make excuses to the teacher or ignore her while she�s screaming at you so that you can copy even more...and in the end the teacher fails you. This whole nuke thing is risky because if you wait too long and react too slow [in terms of US perspective] you have just allowed a "rabid" country the power to kill millions at the push of a button, and if you go to war with it, its pointless because that button might get pushed because of you. If you don't go to war with it once it has a nuke you live in fear. If you act fast you stop the nuke program before it finishes you have just stopped a potential disaster but you are hated for starting another war and getting many of your soldiers killed because of an unfinished threat. In both choices you lose, but in the former you lose a lot more, the real approach would be a centrist one where you allow it to build nuclear power but not nuclear weapons. If they refuse well you just will lose a couple thousand if not more soldiers in trade for millions of citizens. If you're late and they do build nukes your only option is to swallow your pride and make friends. Although I too...very much dislike Bush. I got to say any leader even the most brilliant one is in a very tough position when it comes to making a choice like that one. Whatever choice Bush makes there will be bad consequences. What will make either choice successful is how he carries it out. Do too little and something bad happens and you fail, do too much and something bad happens again and you fail. Find balance and you might just succeed.



Arov	Apr 30 2006, 01:17 AM Post #14
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law Posts: 2,351 Group: Resident Member #156 Joined: November 22, 2005	VincentDantes Apr 30 2006, 12:00 AM Why the signed it? Its happened before, with other countries like Hitler telling Stalin he won't attack him and signing a treaty so Stalin will feel secure and comfortable and won't attack Hitler and then when he's nice and cozy Hitler attacks. [There�s a lot more to that and motives were a bit different but the same tactic.] Iran signed it so that the west doesn't watch them like a hawk and that the west feels reassured and secure that Iran won't build nuclear weapons. This fake feeling of security in turn allows Iran time and preparation to initiate a program and progress with it as much as they can before the western watch dogs start poking their nose around once again. VincentDantes, the West has been eyeing Iran nonstop for years, especially the US. Every few years, the National State of Emergency regarding Iran gets renewed by the US president. You can do a search on the White House website if you don't believe me (just type "Iran" and you will get many renewals). Iran has alot of diplomatic/economic allies: Russia, India, the Causcaus nations, and China; and is a very prominent member of the Group of 77. The US also has interests in these nations. If the US attacks Iran without having a legal backing, the US would lose its diplomatic footing with many nations where it has alot of interests (think China, India). Not only that, but the US would also be alienated from the entire international community, like it was when it invaded Iraq. There are US forces right next to Iran, in a chaotic country that is struggling to put a government in place while US forces scramble to keep order; also a country that Iran fought against for years, so they would have many attack strategies. They are also in Afghanistan, next door to the East. If Iran attacked US interests without any legal backing, it too would lose its international interests. The only thing standing in the way of Iran going to war against the fatigued US forces in Iraq is its non-proliferation treaty, the thing keeping the US army at bay. However much it wants to attack the "threat to the west", it cannot be the agressor, or it would be humiliated. What else is a rogue country with a vendetta against the US to do? It could cancel the proliferation treaty it signed and give the West a reason to invade, in a war where the West has everything to lose and Iran has everything to gain. It would also be, in al-Zarqawi's words, "a stone's throw away from Jerusalem", another incentive for Iran to invade Iraq. It could also invade Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and other weak Mideast countries with pro-US regimes. Not only would Iran get a chance to slaughter the infidels, it would gain lots of territory, and bring the world's only superpower to its knees diplomatically and thus, maybe even economically. Maybe not, but it would definitely turn the global economy more towards Iran's favor, at the US's expense. I just hope the US doesn't fall into their trap. If we do, I will not know what to say...



Arov	Apr 30 2006, 11:19 PM Post #15
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law Posts: 2,351 Group: Resident Member #156 Joined: November 22, 2005	Will somebody respond?



Arov	May 1 2006, 08:06 PM Post #16
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law Posts: 2,351 Group: Resident Member #156 Joined: November 22, 2005	Come on, people. I want to see comments.



Love and Honour	May 1 2006, 09:01 PM Post #17
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir Posts: 12,768 Group: Resident Member #52 Joined: June 29, 2005	Arov Apr 30 2006, 12:17 AM VincentDantes Apr 30 2006, 12:00 AM Why the signed it? Its happened before, with other countries like Hitler telling Stalin he won't attack him and signing a treaty so Stalin will feel secure and comfortable and won't attack Hitler and then when he's nice and cozy Hitler attacks. [There�s a lot more to that and motives were a bit different but the same tactic.] Iran signed it so that the west doesn't watch them like a hawk and that the west feels reassured and secure that Iran won't build nuclear weapons. This fake feeling of security in turn allows Iran time and preparation to initiate a program and progress with it as much as they can before the western watch dogs start poking their nose around once again. VincentDantes, the West has been eyeing Iran nonstop for years, especially the US. Every few years, the National State of Emergency regarding Iran gets renewed by the US president. You can do a search on the White House website if you don't believe me (just type "Iran" and you will get many renewals). Iran has alot of diplomatic/economic allies: Russia, India, the Causcaus nations, and China; and is a very prominent member of the Group of 77. The US also has interests in these nations. If the US attacks Iran without having a legal backing, the US would lose its diplomatic footing with many nations where it has alot of interests (think China, India). Not only that, but the US would also be alienated from the entire international community, like it was when it invaded Iraq. There are US forces right next to Iran, in a chaotic country that is struggling to put a government in place while US forces scramble to keep order; also a country that Iran fought against for years, so they would have many attack strategies. They are also in Afghanistan, next door to the East. If Iran attacked US interests without any legal backing, it too would lose its international interests. The only thing standing in the way of Iran going to war against the fatigued US forces in Iraq is its non-proliferation treaty, the thing keeping the US army at bay. However much it wants to attack the "threat to the west", it cannot be the agressor, or it would be humiliated. What else is a rogue country with a vendetta against the US to do? It could cancel the proliferation treaty it signed and give the West a reason to invade, in a war where the West has everything to lose and Iran has everything to gain. It would also be, in al-Zarqawi's words, "a stone's throw away from Jerusalem", another incentive for Iran to invade Iraq. It could also invade Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and other weak Mideast countries with pro-US regimes. Not only would Iran get a chance to slaughter the infidels, it would gain lots of territory, and bring the world's only superpower to its knees diplomatically and thus, maybe even economically. Maybe not, but it would definitely turn the global economy more towards Iran's favor, at the US's expense. I just hope the US doesn't fall into their trap. If we do, I will not know what to say... Arov IMO Iran will not attack first but will defend itself against what it views the aggressor. The US will eventually bomb the nuclear site in Iran (or Israel will do it first). The retaliation will be smart and will not be obvious. In Iraq the US has somehow manages to create a democracy where the main party has closer ties with Iran. You are right in that this is where the "battle" will be fought. and IMO lost (by the US). The eventual outcome. The US leaving Iraq with a Democratic Government demanding their removal. Strings in Iraq pulled by Iran and Iran seen as the only regional player to stand up (and win) against the US. on a side note...If the US think that Iran will be another "easy" (and I use that term loosely) target like Iraq they will be mistaken. Iran is if anything a country that will solidify in the face of an outside threat. I don't even think the "Brains" (again term used loosely) of the US Government & Military will miss that point and will only use surgical air-strikes in this current stand off. As for the effect on the economies, I'm not an economist but I'd say the effects will be short term.



Arov	May 1 2006, 09:06 PM Post #18
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law Posts: 2,351 Group: Resident Member #156 Joined: November 22, 2005	If the US or Israel launches airstrikes, Iran could use that as grounds for all-out war.



Love and Honour	May 1 2006, 09:09 PM Post #19
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir Posts: 12,768 Group: Resident Member #52 Joined: June 29, 2005	That will not happen as a ground war against the US cannot be won. Do not take them for fools.



Arov	May 2 2006, 03:24 AM Post #20
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law Posts: 2,351 Group: Resident Member #156 Joined: November 22, 2005	The Iranians probably would not win a ground war against the US, you're right, but they could seriously damage prospects in Iraq.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience. Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · OMAHD Archives · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2