An Act of War?

[CoM_Solaufein]

Source

 

Looks like the European Union is going to get involved in this situation.

[Jorian Drake]

Nice, now we have a new variable in the math....with this it has a lot higher possibility to get into a war, but with EU this also means all memberstates would be at war too...

 

 

 

Iran has now 2 real possibilities:

 

 

- either really relese the prisoners

 

- or stand ground and then it is up to UK-EU-USA if a war breaks out

[Rosbjerg]

There's a huge difference between EU demanding a country to comply and EU going to war.. Iraq was threathend several times, when they refused inspectors to do their work, I realize this kind of situation is different, but I don't believe anyone is really interested in a war here. No one is that stupid, Iran would be thwarthed and we could leave immediately after, we wouldn't hold any moral responsibility to restore them like in Iraq.

And both EU and The US are tired of war so it would take something much more radical than a hostage situation to provoke us to war.

 

Jorian, you seem to forget the power of words and political means to an end. It's far more beneficial in these matters (in the long run) to use a harsh political tone than physical reprecussions. Especially since EU and US are trying to restore their reputation in these days (especially to their citizens), which Iran is, cleverly I might add, taking advantage of. We would loose more if we go to war and they gain international reputation by staving us off. They are trying to see how far they can push us.

[Sand]

How about putting the sailors on trial, then when they are found guilty, executed. Do you think that would be provocation enough?

[Rosbjerg]

yes that would be more than sufficient.

 

But Iran would never do that, it would be the end of their reign and nation. They would loose everything and gain nothing, since no one would back them up. As long as they appear to be adhearing to international war (soldiers caught in national waters can be detained and questioned) they are in no risk of retaliation. But as soon as they break international laws they are in real trouble.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Rosbjerg

[Sand]

The trial might be starting soon...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_...ish_seized_iran

[Kaftan Barlast]

There are a lot of people who would like to see a war on Iran, but the fact remains that there is currently no one capable of undertaking an invasion.

[taks]

uh, as far as i understand it, the EU itself cannot go to war anyway as it is primarily an economic agreement, right? is the EU leadership elected by the people, or appointed by the states?

 

taks

Edited March 31, 2007 by taks

[Volourn]

"There are a lot of people who would like to see a war on Iran, but the fact remains that there is currently no one capable of undertaking an invasion."

 

War doesn't neccessarily = invasion.

[Rosbjerg]

uh, as far as i understand it, the EU itself cannot go to war anyway as it is primarily an economic agreement, right? is the EU leadership elected by the people, or appointed by the states?

 

taks

 

We can't go to way per say like America (through an election in Congress), no, but it's more than a economical agreement and closer to a federation of Nations. EU could appeal for it's members to participate, but never demand that they do.

 

How the political members are elected varies and I must admit I don't know how other countries do it. Here in Denmark it's both politicians and the people that elect representatives through local and national elections, though most of the time political parties nominates a candidate, which is then elected (or rejected) by our "senate".

[Cantousent]

Any number of nations could undertake an invasion of Iran. Some of them could succeed. There aren't any nations with sufficient will to do so. We can kill the enemy on a 10 to 1 ratio and it's considered a dismal failure by the world press. Hell, it's considered a failure in our own press.

 

If Iran doesn't hand over the sailors, then the UK should take appropriate action. Doing so will undoubtedly push us closer to a dramatic world-wide military show down. Of that I'm certain. Unfortunately, and here is where most of you miss the mark, if the UK takes no action, or even weak action, then we will also be pushed closer to a world-wide military show down. The only thing that will help us is for Iran to give up the sailors.

[Gorgon]

uh, as far as i understand it, the EU itself cannot go to war anyway as it is primarily an economic agreement, right? is the EU leadership elected by the people, or appointed by the states?

 

 

there was supposed to be a common EU defence policy and an EU rapid reaction force, but it hasen't happened yet. It was mostly a German and French wet dream, the rest aren't that interested.

 

The EU comission is is selected by governments, only the EU parliament is elected by the people. The comission has more hands on power in the day to day leadership of the EU. So, it's hardly a democracy.

 

The parliament though can fire the comission through a vote of no confidence, and has done so in the past during the corruption scandals.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Gorgon

[taks]

to me, then, it sounds like the EU really doesn't have any authority to declare war, or military action of any kind. even if it did, i would never understand how an unelected leadership could be given, or allowed to assume, authority to risk citizen's lives.

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

The EU does not have a formal military coalition force, not in any way the authority to suggest its member countries to take military action. And even if we did have an army standing by, there is noone outside of The US/UK coalition that would be willing to attack Iran. We've all seen how much Iraq has and is costing the US, and no goverment would be willing to bancrupt their countries in the same way.

 

 

A war on Iran demands a full-scale invasion because what you need to accomplish is ot just a simple disruption of their fighting ability, but a complete toppling of their entire political and religious machine. Anything less than that would fail to do anything to change their standing as the worls premier instigator and sponsor of extremist islamist violence.

Edited April 1, 2007 by Kaftan Barlast

[Sand]

Iraq is only costing us an arm and a leg because our President was an idiot and kept our forces in that country to help "rebuild." A whole lot of good that did. Costing billions and billions and what happens on his watch? The country goes down the toilet in civil war. While the invasion was wrong we should have bugged out after the job was done.

[Azarkon]

Ah, but see - that would've made the entire operation an obvious waste of time, since Bush's justifications for the war were:

 

1. WMDs = none found

 

2. Spreading democracy & human rights = didn't stay to do it

 

3. Fighting terrorists = failed

 

As of right now, he can at least still claim to be doing #2 and #3, regardless of results.

[Weiser_Cain]

I say say whatever they want to get the troops back the retract the statement and embargo the hell out of them. We'll go along, we kind of want to go to war with them anyway.

[J.E. Sawyer]

A war on Iran demands a full-scale invasion because what you need to accomplish is ot just a simple disruption of their fighting ability, but a complete toppling of their entire political and religious machine. Anything less than that would fail to do anything to change their standing as the worls premier instigator and sponsor of extremist islamist violence.

A lot of Iran's population is surprisingly liberal. Ahmadinejad isn't exactly universally beloved by the population. The size of the invasion force would depend on the goals of the invaders, but I don't think the invaders would face a fanatical horde of Ahmadinejad zealots. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would happen if he were removed from power. Iran's political system is really weird.

[Weiser_Cain]

I have a fool proof way of getting rid of the threat that is iran but we'd have to be hit by a nuke before we'd do it. On a side note, why don't we have giant space lasers?

[SteveThaiBinh]

A lot of Iran's population is surprisingly liberal. Ahmadinejad isn't exactly universally beloved by the population. The size of the invasion force would depend on the goals of the invaders, but I don't think the invaders would face a fanatical horde of Ahmadinejad zealots. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would happen if he were removed from power. Iran's political system is really weird.

The Iranians have seen close up what happens to a country when the US or 'the West' invades. I think you could count on much stronger resistance than was offered by the Iraqis. Iranians are extremely proud of their cultural heritage and will not willingly see it ransacked.

 

In the view of the Daily Telegraph, these sailors were taken because Tony Blair expressed regret about the slave trade, which apparently makes Britain appear weak in the eyes of the rest of the world.

 

Oh, and please steer clear in the discussion of anything that looks like advocating nuclear annihilation, even if not meant seriously.

[Gorgon]

Iran is a strange amalgam of zealot leftovers from the revolution who actively seek confrontation, albeit perhaps not a military one, and moderates who have a better understanding of international diplomacy and no wish to see sanctions.

[Jorian Drake]

I have a fool proof way of getting rid of the threat that is iran but we'd have to be hit by a nuke before we'd do it. On a side note, why don't we have giant space lasers?

Becoz you aren't GDI

[Volourn]

"The Iranians have seen close up what happens to a country when the US or 'the West' invades. I think you could count on much stronger resistance than was offered by the Iraqis. Iranians are extremely proud of their cultural heritage and will not willingly see it ransacked."

 

Iran doesn't have major religious strife between different groups like Iraq. It's majorily Shiite so it's doubtful that there'd be major civil war going on which is the main reason why there's still a lot of killin' going on in Iraq.

[taks]

The EU does not have a formal military coalition force, not in any way the authority to suggest its member countries to take military action.

emphasized part is what i was getting at.

 

We've all seen how much Iraq has and is costing the US, and no goverment would be willing to bancrupt their countries in the same way.

i'd hardly say that iraq is bankrupting us. US $50B/year is a drop in the bucket to us with >US $2T/year in tax dollars to blow. though to a smaller country, that certainly would be significant.

 

taks

[taks]

A lot of Iran's population is surprisingly liberal. Ahmadinejad isn't exactly universally beloved by the population. The size of the invasion force would depend on the goals of the invaders, but I don't think the invaders would face a fanatical horde of Ahmadinejad zealots. To be honest, I'm not really sure what would happen if he were removed from power. Iran's political system is really weird.

 

very true. agreed, as well, that their political system is weird. a theocracy that the majority do not truly favor (hence the "liberal" statement you made). i'd venture to guess those in charge would find another similar saber rattler to put in his place.

 

taks