Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:58 pm

Io.Draco wrote:Everything short of a nuclear attack would result in a long and costly war against Iran, even if Israel got involved to help you out. Although taking the gloves want means what that the US no longer gives a damn about the Geneva convention. Oh that would never have major political repercussions against the country.

Also that ICBM attack, not going to happen. For all the BS that's in the media that the US is under threat by Iran and North Korea those countries aren't going to launch ICBMs against the US. What would be the gain?

That's my point. Iran is not going to launch at the US because the US would literally go ballistic on them. The US outspends Iran on military budget by two orders of magnitude. Nothing to gain and everything to lose.

As far as the Geneva convention is concerned, don't underestimate (or misunderestimate) the arrogance of the US. They figure they can do what they want because who's going to enforce it?
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:21 am

We actually do hold pretty tight to the geneva and hague conventions*. It's less a matter of "who's gonna enforce it" and more a matter of "if we break the rules, so will they" and that would be horrifyingly bad. Terrorists aren't exactly an army and even the taliban and al-qaeda haven't gone and broken those treaties wholesale. If we publicly break them, then it becomes the US versus the entire world - and that's something that not even WE are arrogant enough to think we would come out on top of.

Not to mention the massive diplomatic ramifications. Even if our allies didn't dogpile on to attack us, they definitely wouldn't be allies anymore.

* There have been, currently are, and will continue to be, mistakes made and exigent circumstances that force minor violations. But on an individual basis it wouldn't be the same as wholesale violations of the treaties.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:45 am

Well, it's not like the US gives a damn what the UN has to say about anything, so if I was Iran, I wouldn't want to rely on the US holding to any international accord. It may not be likely they would do anything against international treaties, but that's far from ruling it out as a possibility, particularly in a retaliatory situation.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:36 am

The Hague and Geneva conventions aren't a UN thing. And the US has been stopped by the UN before - keep in mind that there are 5 countries (US, UK, China, Russia, and France) that have veto powers in the UN. Most recently, Russia and China vetoed a plan drafted by the US to go into Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18914578
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:02 am

I'll just say this. I miss the days of the surplus.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11026
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:56 am

Koatanga wrote:Well, it's not like the US gives a damn what the UN has to say about anything, so if I was Iran, I wouldn't want to rely on the US holding to any international accord. It may not be likely they would do anything against international treaties, but that's far from ruling it out as a possibility, particularly in a retaliatory situation.



Considering they didn't do it with Afghanistan when the World Trade Center was bombed I'd doubt they would do it for Iran.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:48 am

Iran launching ICBM's at us is not on the same scale as the 9/11 attacks, and I'd expect a retaliatory series of strikes designed to make sure they were utterly incapable of launching another sort of offensive for a generation or so. And in that scenario we'd have the full support of our allies regardless of any sort of international laws that may come into play.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:31 pm

I don't quite agree, especially if the US starts breaking the Geneve and Hague conventions wholesale you would find European support for American action quite frankly limited.

As for the response to the strike. Well that would depend on the targets hit. The only realistic scenario where Iran would fire an ICBM to hit the mainland of the USA would be as part of pre-emptive strike against the US military forces, specifically those in the Arab Gulf. In that scenario the target would be military. This would only happen if Iran firmly believed that the US was being ready to attack them.

While I would expect messages of support from US allies in that event I would not expect any real military or even political support to materialize, at least from the EU. Europe doesn't care at all for the notion of getting dragged into a war against Iran because of American idiocy in preparing to strike/invade Iran.

As for Israel..well let's just say that if they were not getting ready to help the US in their attack on Iran they would not lift a finger to help you, because doing so means facing Hezbollah.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:41 pm

Io.Draco wrote:Considering they didn't do it with Afghanistan when the World Trade Center was bombed I'd doubt they would do it for Iran.

That's because Afghanistan - the country - didn't attack the US. Instead it was a terrorist organisation that operated out of several countries, including Afghanistan.

When it was Iraq, the US ignored the UN, so I have no doubt they'd do it for Iran.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:37 am

The UN didn't tell us we couldn't invade Iraq, they just declined support. Essentially, we didn't even ask for UN support beforehand, because we knew we'd never get it - especially with Russia and China being able to veto any resolution to deploy a joint task force. Iraq is a good customer for arms deals with both Russia and China, so it's pretty close to a sure thing that any attempted resolution to get UN nations to invade Iraq would have been vetoed by one or the other.

Given that the UN stands pretty firmly behind sanctions on Iran's nuclear program, though, if Iran were to launch a preemptive strike against the US then the UN would likely be behind a full scale invasion of Iran from all member nations.

That would change the instant that the US started wiping its collective ass with the Geneva and Hague treaties, though. We would likely be "withdrawn" from the UN for that, or at least severely penalized - probably by taking us off of the security commission, leaving us without veto powers. There isn't any precedent for countries being kicked out of the UN, but there also isn't any precedent for a signatory of either of the "rules of war" treaties being unapologetically violated either. I would argue that they would have to make a pretty severe example of the first country to do so, and by removing the US from the UN that would count as a "pretty severe example". The US would become diplomatically radioactive and NOBODY would want to deal with us, and it would effectively be the end of the United States.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:47 am

I guess I'm lost on the notion of why we'd be ignoring the Geneva convention anyhow? It would certainly not be necessary to accomplish the mission in Iran, particularly if they launched first.

That said, the UN's standards for membership are incredibly low. If you look through the list of members, there isn't exactly a shortage of regimes that have soundly ignored Geneva (and lots of other international treaties). They don't kick out nations, they attempt a diplomatic approach to stop the action and then maybe afterwards prosecute leaders. Kicking a country out would kind of be a bit self defeating for the UN.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:08 pm

There have been a number of countries "withdrawn" from the UN because they no longer exist, but none have ever been forcibly withdrawn. One country tried to voluntarily withdraw, but the UN ignored them until they stopped talking about wanting out.

And the countries that wipe their collective asses with the Geneva and Hague treaties are generally those who aren't signatories to them. If you aren't a signatory of a treaty then you can't be held to the terms in those treaties. Given that it's the US who prosecutes war crimes (for the most part), I don't think they would have any recourse BUT to kick us out if we were to go off the rails like that, since we wouldn't respond to any of the UN requests to show up for our own trial.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:43 am

I'm sure they'd manage to setup another of their special courts for us, like they do when their members break international law, even if we weren't the ones doing the heavy lifting.

Again, kicking us out would be self defeating and I don't know what it would gain them. A big part of their job is to fix these issues, diplomatically, and kicking us out would be akin to giving up on their biggest prize ever. They'll use their usual forms of punishments with declarations and sanctions and so forth.

But I'm willing to bet internally those responsible would have their own issues. Such violations would create massive political issues here ranging from impeachment to certainly not getting re-elected, and most likely result in electing officials that would address the problems and deal with the violators. I really don't think that leadership in any westernized country could commit massive scale atrocities and not pay a price at home, which is kind of the anchor of the UN anyhow.

Any way, that's all just speculation either way, but I think this whole digression is moot. I have no idea why we would be ignoring Geneva anyhow, it seems totally unnecessary and unrealistic.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:49 am

Why can't the US stop playing World Police? People in the middle east hates us for two reasons.
- We meddle in other people's business
- We are seen as Israel's lapdog.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11026
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:55 am

How unpatriotic of you. Everyone knows that All Real Americans do not "meddle" but "bring democracy" to the unenlightened masses.

Geesh.
Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest