Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Military intervention vs. Iran.. justified?

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zeropoint)
    Israel is indeed a secular democracy, but also rather belligerent. If Iran had nuclear weapons Israel would think much harder before attacking them, even with US support.

    Nuclear deterrents work both ways.
    Well yeah, but if Iran weren't trying to develop nuclear weapons, Israel wouldn't consider attacking them at all...
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Well yeah, but if Iran weren't trying to develop nuclear weapons, Israel wouldn't consider attacking them at all...
    yes they would
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unclej)
    yes they would
    On what basis?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    They're our ally. Whilst I'm something of an isolationist, I will always support sticking up for our allies.
    Hardly a prominent ally they are more the US's ally than ours we are kind of indifferent towards them.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    Hardly a prominent ally they are more the US's ally than ours we are kind of indifferent towards them.
    They're a modern, secular democracy with principles similar to those of our own.
    Also, annual bilateral trade exceeds $3bn.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Israel is not governmentally religious, and it's not a dictatorship. It's a modern democracy, with a secular constitution. They only have nukes as a deterrent
    Who are Israel trying to deter exactly? With the exception of Syria (who aren't going to invade anyway because Israel would crush them in a war) and Hamas (who don't care because Israel aren't going to nuke Gaza), they're surrounded by US client states.

    it's obvious that Iran want them for offensive purposes.
    Why is it obvious? Iran hasn't attacked anyone for a couple of centuries. It's been attacked, by a then US client state (Iraq in 1980), it's surrounded by US military bases and in the past 10 years has seen its two closest neighbours invaded and occupied by NATO. But of course none of those things would cause it to feel threatened, not at all.....
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    They're a modern, secular democracy with principles similar to those of our own.
    Also, annual bilateral trade exceeds $3bn.
    So what it doesn't mean we should be willing to spend British money and risk British lives on a hunch. $3bn per year is nothing anyway. Their principles however are nothing like our own.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Who are Israel trying to deter exactly? With the exception of Syria (who aren't going to invade anyway because Israel would crush them in a war) and Hamas (who don't care because Israel aren't going to nuke Gaza), they're surrounded by US client states.
    Egypt, perhaps? They've already been in two massive wars with them, and peace was only achieved between the two countries through the efforts of the non-Islamist Anwar Sadat. Now that Egypt have an Islamist government, who knows what they might try?

    There are also a host of other North-African countries who have similar attitudes towards Israel, including Morocco. They might
    be very unlikely to attack, but that's really only because of Israel's military might.

    Why is it obvious? Iran hasn't attacked anyone for a couple of centuries. It's been attacked, by a then US client state (Iraq in 1980), it's surrounded by US military bases and in the past 10 years has seen its two closest neighbours invaded and occupied by NATO. But of course none of those things would cause it to feel threatened, not at all.....
    OK, it's not 'obvious'. But Iran's government is extremely unstable. Believe me when I say that when it comes to attitudes towards Israel, Ahmadinejad is a pussycat compared to others involved in the highest levels of Iranian government. The various rebel factions in the country are, in fact, a million times more Islamist than Ahmadinejad: if the prospect of Ahmadinejad with nuclear weapons is a bit worrying, nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the rebel factions through any sort of coup is utterly terrifying.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    So what it doesn't mean we should be willing to spend British money and risk British lives on a hunch. $3bn per year is nothing anyway. Their principles however are nothing like our own.
    I'm not party to the intelligence, so I can't say whether what we have on Iran is a hunch or not. However, if they look like they're going to gain the capability to attack Israel, and there is significant reason to believe they'll do so, then I think we should defend Israel. After all, if WW3 started tomorrow, Israel would be on our side.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Egypt, perhaps? They've already been in two massive wars with them, and peace was only achieved between the two countries through the efforts of the non-Islamist Anwar Sadat. Now that Egypt have an Islamist government, who knows what they might try?
    The remaining Mubarak regime generals probably have a similar attitude to their old master, so it's unlikely they'll attack Israel, and the Obama administration have been giving a lot of support, including money, to the Muslim Brotherhood, which I severely doubt they'd be doing if there was any chance of them attacking Israel.

    There are also a host of other North-African countries who have similar attitudes towards Israel, including Morocco. They might
    be very unlikely to attack, but that's really only because of Israel's military might.
    And also because they're a continent's width away, because they like being in either the American or French fold (they sort of hop between them), and because frankly they have no reason to want to attack Israel.

    OK, it's not 'obvious'. But Iran's government is extremely unstable. Believe me when I say that when it comes to attitudes towards Israel, Ahmadinejad is a pussycat compared to others involved in the highest levels of Iranian government. The various rebel factions in the country are, in fact, a million times more Islamist than Ahmadinejad: if the prospect of Ahmadinejad with nuclear weapons is a bit worrying, nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the rebel factions through any sort of coup is utterly terrifying.
    And even Iran's rulers are sensible enough to keep anyone too mad out of power. Awful as they are, they don't want to see their country reduced to rubble.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm sure the US would love to invade North Korea, but it would completely destabilise the entire Pacific area while most likely provoking Russia and China into action.

    Meanwhile, everyone important hates the Iranians or wants nothing to do with them, therefore an invasion of Iran would not be as risky regarding Russia, China and India.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
    I'm sure the US would love to invade North Korea, but it would completely destabilise the entire Pacific area while most like provoking Russia and China into action.
    And result in the desecration of Seoul via nuclear weapons.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
    I'm sure the US would love to invade North Korea, but it would completely destabilise the entire Pacific area while most like provoking Russia and China into action.
    Doubt it. What would they do with North Korea once they'd deposed the Kims? It's got no natural resources. But it's an economic mess that someone has to clear up and pay for. Currently the Chinese and Russians subsidise it, which suits the US fine. If they were to invade, they have three options: i) reunify Korea and South Korea's economy gets practically no growth for 20 or 30 years while they build the North up, ii) the US keeps hold of Korea and it has to subsidise the mess being fixed, iii) the US just leaves North Korea after deposing the current regime.

    For the US, the current situation is preferable to both i) and ii) for obvious reasons and iii) is just pointless, really.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    On what basis?
    They've attacked other Arab nations Unprovoked before and the us invasion of Iraq which had nothing to do with nuclear weapons despite the lies and propaganda that we were fed which is disturbingly similar to the Iran situation
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unclej)
    They've attacked other Arab nations Unprovoked before and the us invasion of Iraq which had nothing to do with nuclear weapons despite the lies and propaganda that we were fed which is disturbingly similar to the Iran situation
    When have they attacked Arab nations unprovoked?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Israel is not governmentally religious, and it's not a dictatorship. It's a modern democracy, with a secular constitution. They only have nukes as a deterrent; it's obvious that Iran want them for offensive purposes.
    I don't get it why people think that everything a democratic country does is fine. A democratic government only(most of the times) represents its people more than other kinds of political system. But it doesn't at all represent the people of other countries. What makes them think they can decide the fate of other countries' people?

    Just want to say, a democratic country may not necessarily be peaceful. It could be a warmonger.
    And a non-democratic country can also be peaceful.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jelf)
    I don't get it why people think that everything a democratic country does is fine. A democratic government only(most of the times) represents its people more than other kinds of political system. But it doesn't at all represent the people of other countries. What makes them think they can decide the fate of other countries' people?

    Just want to say, a democratic country may not necessarily be peaceful. It could be a warmonger.
    And a non-democratic country can also be peaceful.
    Well yes, but Israel is peaceful. As the saying goes, if the Arabs laid down their weapons there would be peace; if Israel did so, there would be a slaughter. The point is that if they were just left alone, they wouldn't be so heavy-handed.

    Also a non-democratic country can never be peaceful; it is waging a war on its own people.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Well yes, but Israel is peaceful. As the saying goes, if the Arabs laid down their weapons there would be peace; if Israel did so, there would be a slaughter. The point is that if they were just left alone, they wouldn't be so heavy-handed.
    This is your opinion and I'm sure a lot people won't agree with you. Just look at Palestine

    (Original post by tufc)
    Also a non-democratic country can never be peaceful; it is waging a war on its own people.
    This is also your own political opinion and I don't aim to argue about that.

    The "peace" I'm talking about here is international. In fact, most of those "dictatorships" would rather be left alone.
    We all know the country that waged the most wars is also the one that claims to be the most democratic(though some may say those are all out of "self-defense" or humanitarianism).

    My point is a democratic country can at most represent its own people, but not those of other countries.
    A lot people don't really care who rules, as long as they can live a stable and comfortable life. I think its up to the people themselves to decide which kind of life they prefer, not some foreign government chosen by some foreigners.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    The united states is a country. It's also a democracy. This means that regimes are constantly changing. You can not talk about previous regimes actions as a reflection of current's regimes actions. It doesn't make much sense.

    The Clinton Administration did try to block North Korea's nuclear ambitions and was going to militarily strike them, this is one of the reasons why North Korea signed 'Agreed Framework'. The United States also isn't omniscient and can't foresee everything. You reasons are wrong. As I said earlier, Clinton Administration was going to militarily strike North Korea but a agreement was signed. By the time North Korea really upped their nuclear ambitions (1992+), Soviet had fallen. The reason why the United States didn't bomb North Korea after it had acquired weapons was because of the possibly retaliation that could occur to South Korea resulting in possibly millions of lives lost and billions of dollars worth of damage. However, there was early belief that Bush would bomb North Korea because of his aggressive foreign policy approach but got caught up with Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The United States is critical of any new nuclear powers. It's one of the most powerful weapons, why on earth would you want any nation to possess it? If it could, it would get rid of every countries nuclear weapons. I doubt the US would even military strike Iran. I think Israel is more likely considering it's track record with Syria and Iraq.

    Anyway, there's no clear picture of what exactly is going to be the United States policy in dealing with Iran. People have been saying that it would bomb Iran for a very long time, there was that incident in 2007 with that unnamed Russian intelligence source. The US haven't even attacked, so I don't see how they're being very aggressive.
    US is a republic not a democracy.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Everyone needs an enemy; it’s an unexplainable need for certain irrational governments.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: August 19, 2012
New on TSR

Personal statement help

Use our clever tool to create a PS you're proud of.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.