Iran soon?

Originally Posted by Onyx

At first, I thought it was Syria that would be next on the list, but perhaps I was wrong.

It'll probably happen. I thought it was funny to hear today that one of the people who actually HEARD the plans from the higher-ups themselves said, "I had to ask them what they were smoking."

As much as some people would like to see it happen, and as much of a threat Iran is right now, I have to say that it won't. Bush is just teetering on the edge of being a lame duck president right now, and proposing a war in Iran when the public sees Iraq as a gigantic quagmire (regardless of whether you think it is or not, the fact is that the majority of people think that Iraq was a mistake) would be political suicide.

Quote:

However, bombing the problem is not the solution. We don't need democracy in Iran. I'll take my chances with the current President Mahmoud or the Ayatollah than I would with anything America has to offer. It's not the US's job to go hunting for bombs. It's the UN's.

Agreed, for the most part.

Quote:

And on that note, if the US does strike Iran, we need to be kicked out of the UN and not let back in until reparations are paid. Not only would it be a violation of International Law, but it would be despised by most of the world (save for maybe Britain, France, Italy, and of course, Israel). Kicking the US out of the UN might not be the most feasible solution, but the UN needs to grow some balls anyway.

That would be a very interesting situation if the US were kicked out of the UN. It is a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto power. Plus, if expulsion require a Security Council vote, then it would never happen, because the US could either veto itself, or failing that, persuade one of the other members (most likely Britain) to veto it. Plus, assuming that the US were kicked out, I would be especially curious as to how the government would react, especially considering that the UN is hosted on U.S. soil. And if it were let in again, would it still retain its position on the Security Council?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Stoob

I sure as hell hope you're right. It really bothers me how in George Washington's farewell speech, he specifically said to any future presidents of America something along the lines of "Do your best to remain neutral in world affairs."

Keep in mind that at the time, the U.S. was little more than an illegitimate country that had just revolted against Britain. They won the war only because the French arrived at the nick of time and assisted in a vital battle. The U.S. at the time was essentially friendless (except for France), powerless, and defenseless. If they had gotten themselves involved with world affairs at that point, they would have likely been on the receiving end of an invasion and swift defeat.

Styphon coming in and verbally owning me in history occurring in 3... 2... 1...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Stoob

*Makes note to himself never to try and duel Styphon in a history-off...or duel a mod in any other thing for that matter*

Very good idea. Styphon's owned me in history so many times that it's practically an inevitability by now.

Honestly, I have NO clue why I talk about history outside of pure masochism. That, and a futile hope that ONE DAY I WILL BEAT LORD STYPHON IN A HISTORY DEBATE. ;_;

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.