Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (185670)	4/26/2006 11:09:55 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We'll know... Any military attack upon Iran will likely have to involved the threat of ground forces. Not necessarily. And that means we'll either have to obtain the permission of Iraq to operate from their territory.. I think there's an agreement between Iran and Iraq that Iraq would not allow Iran to be attacked from Iraqi territory. Iraq would have to abrogate that agreement. Possible, but a significant technicality. Either way.. Aside from the fact that we don't yet have UNSC sanction to use "all necessary means" I don't think the UNSC will fall for that trick a second time. Getting the "all necessary means" phrase into a UNSC resolution is going to be a lot harder than it was. Besides, if Iran pulls out of the NPT than the UN has no oversight role. Iran wouldn't be required to abide by the NPT or be required to allow inspections. They would be perfectly free under international law to do any nuclear research of any kind or for any intent. The UN has no legal leverage over North Korea, India, Pakistan, or Israel in that respect. All the UN can do is encourage the countries to sign and abide by the NPT. ..we'll need to have an authorization to use force from Congress. It depends. Nixon bombed Cambodia without any Congressional approval and the bombing was considered for a short time as one of the causes for impeachment. But Congress decided the Cambodia came under the prerogative of the Commander in Chief and dropped it. In the same manner, Bush could decide on a single conventional strike of the facility in Iran that enriches uranium. [Hopefully, our intelligence agencies won't confuse the facility with the Chinese embassy. You might recall, we've had confusion earlier from our intelligence agencies in identifying military targets.] You can imagine all the speeches/rhetoric justifying the decision after the fact. Not waiting for a mushroom cloud, terrorism, WMD, etc.. And I have every reason to believe that you and some others would be on this thread touting the correctness of that decision. Countries around the world will issue the required condemnations. The UNSC will have a resolution condemning the attack, which the US will veto... So settle down a bit... That's a bizarre comment. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. jttmab