Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

USA threatens Iran? watch

  • View Poll Results: Is this likely/do you believe the report?
    definatly
    0
    0%
    seems credible but need more info
    28.57%
    un-decided
    21.43%
    seems incredible but need more info
    7.14%
    definatly NOT
    28.57%
    educational comment/abstain
    14.29%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hello_miffy)
    Spain maintains that it expects the USA to exhaust all possible diplomatic alternatives before considering military action, and believes the political and humanitarian repercussions of an armed strike against the Islamic Republic of Iran too severe for such action to be considered in the current climate.

    Spain reminds the USA that it will not contribute to any military advance against Iran. It also reminds all nations that such a military strike may be illegal without full UN approval and broader support from the international community.
    Denmark believes in these cases there may be a difference between what is legal and what is right. Denmark also believes Iran is making a serious mistake by deciding to continue nuclear research.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brimstone)
    Terrorist whipped? Hah, the US can talk!

    Sorry...
    That doesn't make any sense. Terrorist-whipped in the sense that the Spaniards elected an appeasing government based on the effects of terror attacks. Americans clearly refused to be cowed in the same way and have elected a strong leader who believes in responding to terror rather than cowardly surrender.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Does the representative for Denmark honestly believe that it is for any one country to decide that they are right to pursue a given course of action, and that the UN statutes that class that action as illegal are wrong?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    That doesn't make any sense. Terrorist-whipped in the sense that the Spaniards elected an appeasing government based on the effects of terror attacks. Americans clearly refused to be cowed in the same way and have elected a strong leader who believes in responding to terror rather than cowardly surrender.
    Strong leader? If I wasn't representing India here, I'd have some stuff to say...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    That doesn't make any sense. Terrorist-whipped in the sense that the Spaniards elected an appeasing government based on the effects of terror attacks. Americans clearly refused to be cowed in the same way and have elected a strong leader who believes in responding to terror rather than cowardly surrender.
    Ah, yes, the principle of a strong leader in a time of tribulation. There are worrying echoes to what the American representative is saying.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Ukraine believes that the only situation worse than a US lead war with Iran is an Iran that owns nukes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Spain: Get your terrorist-whipped ass outta here.
    That's quite possibly the most hypocritical response imaginable from a country such as the USA.

    That doesn't make any sense. Terrorist-whipped in the sense that the Spaniards elected an appeasing government based on the effects of terror attacks. Americans clearly refused to be cowed in the same way.
    That is apart from the fact that the opinion polls for the American government show public approval of President Bush at all time low. 64 percent of Americans are concerned that the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism measures could threaten their civil liberties. A third are "very concerned".

    This debate should not overshadow the point of this discussion - Iran. Not the Spanish or American Governments. This childish insult throwing underminds the dignity of the citizens of all our nations.


    The Ukraine believes that the only situation worse than a US lead war with Iran is an Iran that owns nukes.
    Spain acknowledges Ukraine's point, however still stresses the importance of diplomatic negotions before any thought of military action.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Does the representative for Denmark honestly believe that it is for any one country to decide that they are right to pursue a given course of action, and that the UN statutes that class that action as illegal are wrong?
    If a country or coallition has already made up their mind to go to war, the UN may well be unable to stop them, no matter how illegal it may be. At the end of the day, a country has to look out for its own interests as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Does the representative for Denmark honestly believe that it is for any one country to decide that they are right to pursue a given course of action, and that the UN statutes that class that action as illegal are wrong?
    The UN is not infallible
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by RichyP)
    The UN is not infallible
    As Serbia can attest (90s conflicts in Yugoslavia).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichyP)
    The UN is not infallible
    Exactly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hello_miffy)
    That's quite possibly the most hypocritical response imaginable from a country such as the USA.
    How so?

    (Original post by hello_miffy)
    That is apart from the fact that the opinion polls for the American government show public approval of President Bush at all time low. 64 percent of Americans are concerned that the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism measures could threaten their civil liberties. A third are "very concerned".
    No-one has ever been elected by an opinion poll. Americans re-elected George W Bush with a majority in November 2004 in a clear show that they will not be cowed by terror and approved of his response to it. Spaniards removed Aznar in a clear show that they will be cowed by terror and were too cowardly to back a response to it. Opinion polls will never be as accurate or as meaningful as clear elections.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Spaniards removed Aznar because a terrorist attack happened just before the election. It was still fresh in their minds, the failings of his government. Bush was reelected because 9/11 was four years before the election, and he had 'won' his 'war' in Iraq - people wanted the terrorists gone, and they thought he was doing it.

    Okay, that's out of character and a bit too D&D...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Now would be a good time to start a nice fiery Mediterranean rant, but I digress .

    It is a year and a half since George W Bush was reelected, and where are we now? It is apparent that Iraq is descending into what is effectively civil war, and Osama is probably sitting in some jacuzzi somewhere- the War on Terror is failing, and America is falling from it's throne. And the American people realize this.

    29 people have been prosecuted today over the Madrid train bombings of 2004, and most Spaniards see this as the beginning of the end of this chapter of Spain's history; therefore stop opening old wounds to try and further your own agenda. New government, new outlook, and Spain will not be the USA's lapdog.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    And on the subject in hand? ie USA and Iran...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Isn't it a huge double standard to call Iran a threat to world peace for implying that it wants to attack one country while at the same time threatening to attack Iran?
    No, because the intentions are different. Iran wants to attack Israel simply for not wanting it on the map whilst the USA wants to attack Iran for having these intentions and building nuclear weapons whilst making these threats.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemgems89)
    No, because the intentions are different. Iran wants to attack Israel simply for not wanting it on the map whilst the USA wants to attack Iran for having these intentions and building nuclear weapons whilst making these threats.
    Which part of the UN Charter legitimizes attacks against countries that threaten, but don't actually attack, other countries?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Which part of the UN Charter legitimizes attacks against countries that threaten, but don't actually attack, other countries?
    The same case applies with the USA. They haven't actually attacked. And they haven't even threatened.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemgems89)
    The same case applies with the USA. They haven't actually attacked. And they haven't even threatened.
    If that is the case, the US should flat out rule out a military option against Iran.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    If that is the case, the US should flat out rule out a military option against Iran.
    Isnt Uzbekistan a US ally that provided bases for US forces to launch the Afghan campaign from? See here, here, and here.

    Although there are conflicting reports on whether Uzbekistan is ceasing cooperation with the US.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.