Is a US-led war with Iran inevitable?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Yep, you got it. The left have utterly f**ked this country up over the last 15 years.

 

W*nkers.

 

Must be the 2 year waiting time for hip replacements that has so upset you. Oh I forgot that was just made up bvllsh1t.

 

FFS. We really don't need another Dune coming out with more reactionary bvllsh1t. Anyway given that you're obviously not part of the "we know best arrogance" brigade why are you on here? It's quite clear that you're arrogant so I can only conclude that you're not part of the "we don't know best" brigade. In which case thanks for your contribution.

[dune]

Jews have a valid claim to Israel.

 

Of course they don't. There is no such thing as a Jewish race. Judaism is a religion. The Jewish race died out/dispersed at the time of the Pharoahs.

[Ken Tone]

 

Not sure anything you've written changes the point I was making in the beginning. It's semantics Argentina did exist as a spanish colony whether it was as the vice royalty of the river plate or under another name. As you pointed out the pope gave the falklands to spain even if he didn't know it by extention you can trace a clear path of possible ownership to Argentina as an ex spanish colony if you want (and Argentina does).

 

It's a strong link? not really no ( though no worse than the British one of "well we left in 1774 but we left a plaque so it's still ours until we came back in 1833 and kicked out some Argentinains who were already there" argument)

 

My orginal point (probably not well put across granted) is countries can use history to make up any convluted reason they like to claim something as thier's. Argentina's claim to the Falklands is a hell of a lot less stupid than Israel's claim to palestine based on it being their ancient homeland.

 

if you allow any legality in Argentina's claim to the Falklands based on the then pope giving all the western hemisphere to Spain and Portugal in 1480 something, then there are fair few other countries that owe Spain and Portugal a few bob. But since I suspect there's only you and me on here that give a damn, I think we'd better just agree to differ. The UN has ruled on this after all.

[SuperMikey]

If you watch this video from 3:32 to 4:48 it should give a definitive answer to the question posed by the OP. Yes, there is a fair amount of mis-representation of the US public in general in the video, but it does show that these people have no idea about the situation and the media brainwash them into certain opinions - certainly a very handy tactic during the Bush era when all the US government wanted to do was some war-mongering.

 

 

As for Iran, the behaviour of their state officials and politicians has been a bit inflammatory of late, so it wouldn't surprise me if the American right-wing media were to take intervention in the country up as a paranoid mission.

Edited 13 October, 2011 by SuperMikey

[buctootim]

Of course they don't. There is no such thing as a Jewish race. Judaism is a religion. The Jewish race died out/dispersed at the time of the Pharoahs.

 

The Jews are semites, just like the palestinians. One group changed religion over a thousand years ago and one group didnt. Neither have more claim on the land than the other - except that the Palestinians can rightly claim that the Israelis have unfairly imported millions of jews from Europe and north Africa and caused many of the problems.

[dune]

The Jews are semites, just like the palestinians. One group changed religion over a thousand years ago and one group didnt. Neither have more claim on the land than the other - except that the Palestinians can rightly claim that the Israelis have unfairly imported millions of jews from Europe and north Africa and caused many of the problems.

 

Exactly. Mass immigration is the problem.

[pap]

The Jews are semites, just like the palestinians. One group changed religion over a thousand years ago and one group didnt. Neither have more claim on the land than the other - except that the Palestinians can rightly claim that the Israelis have unfairly imported millions of jews from Europe and north Africa and caused many of the problems.

 

Exactly. Mass immigration is the problem.

 

Mass immigration backed with billions of dollars of aid and expertise, to be precise.

 

I can understand why the Arabs would be upset. I certainly sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians. Imagine how we'd feel if were displaced from our homes by force of arms, then had to live under the conditions they did.

[Crab Lungs]

Since when have rights and deomcracy been extended to British subjects in the eyes of the loony left intelligensia ? Rights and democracy are for put-upon foreginers.

 

I absolute despise "we know best" arrogance from the bleeding-heart liberal mongs.

 

I have to say, I do agree with this. I wouldn't feel like it though if said people replied politely instead of smart-arsed ripostes and/or belittling.

[pap]

If you watch this video from 3:32 to 4:48 it should give a definitive answer to the question posed by the OP. Yes, there is a fair amount of mis-representation of the US public in general in the video, but it does show that these people have no idea about the situation and the media brainwash them into certain opinions - certainly a very handy tactic during the Bush era when all the US government wanted to do was some war-mongering.

 

 

As for Iran, the behaviour of their state officials and politicians has been a bit inflammatory of late, so it wouldn't surprise me if the American right-wing media were to take intervention in the country up as a paranoid mission.

 

I think I've seen this video before. The whole thing is a good watch, but its clearly the result of some selective editing. I'm sure that a few of their people could conjure up a country beginning with "U"

 

But for the record, I've met Americans who had an inkling of what was happening overseas, but I've seen the attitudes in the vid first hand too.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I'm with alps on this point, at least.

 

I don't get the distinction between the two cases you've made.

 

If i was to attack you on the street, and you retaliated in self defense but in the same way, who would get prosecuted?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

If i was to attack you on the street, and you retaliated in self defense but in the same way, who would get prosecuted?

 

The Arab?

[pap]

If i was to attack you on the street, and you retaliated in self defense but in the same way, who would get prosecuted?

 

In those particular circumstances, you'd be f*cking nicked, me old beauty.

 

However, most street altercations favour conventional fisticuffs over nuclear weapons. If they did, my answer would have to be that neither of us would be prosecuted. We'd both be dead on account of the nuclear weapon going off.

 

As I've said before, the only reason countries get the bomb is because it confers unofficial membership of the "don't fu.ck with me club". You get the bomb, and other countries tend to look the other way on a lot of things.

 

Since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we've only had one genuine scare, when Matthew Broderick almost destroyed the world by playing "Global Thermonuclear War". Even that evidence is disputed - several of my close friends and family have reassured me that "WarGames is just a film"

[doddisalegend]

doddsi...you are missing the point

the islanders WANT/CHOOSE to remain with us...surely in a democratic society we should respect that and defend them like we would with any other british dependancy

 

I'm not saying we should give the falklands to Argentina at no point have I said we should.

 

I'm trying to point out that people who think its fair to kick the Palestines out of the homes over a claim to a Jewish homeland that exsisted two and half thousand years ago would never consider the same thing in the Falklands (or Gibraltar I'm willing to bet) where Argentina has a better claim.

 

Palestine was a british dependency (mandate) when the whole issue of Israel kicked off in the 40s and we weren't to bothered about defending any one then.

[Saint in Paradise]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/us/iran-sees-terror-plot-accusation-as-diversion-from-wall-street-protests.html?_r=3&hp

 

The New York Times newspaper seems to think that perhaps all is not what it seems with regard to Iran.

[pap]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/us/iran-sees-terror-plot-accusation-as-diversion-from-wall-street-protests.html?_r=3&hp

 

The New York Times newspaper seems to think that perhaps all is not what it seems with regard to Iran.

 

That's an interesting read, especially the part about the Israelis assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists with the tacit approval of the US. Genuinely the first I've heard of that.

 

I hear sabre-rattling.

[pap]

Bump.

 

Another attack on Iranian nuclear personnel.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501669

 

Heard from one of my tinfoil hat sources that war is nailed on for October.

[alpine_saint]

Mossad have been busy again I see.

 

Melanie Phillips reckons Monkey-Face in Iran is rattled...

[Window Cleaner]

Mossad have been busy again I see.

 

Melanie Phillips reckons Monkey-Face in Iran is rattled...

 

I thought she recently said that cracks are beginning to open up in the revolutionary guard structure!!

As I once said on some other thread,perhaps the one about the RQ170,it's a matter of buying enough time for the regime of the Ayatollahs to be destroyed from within.

Mind you should they try to block the Hormuz straights...well I guess there will be a few navys queueing up for target practice.

[pap]

I thought she recently said that cracks are beginning to open up in the revolutionary guard structure!!

As I once said on some other thread,perhaps the one about the RQ170,it's a matter of buying enough time for the regime of the Ayatollahs to be destroyed from within.

Mind you should they try to block the Hormuz straights...well I guess there will be a few navys queueing up for target practice.

 

I remember reading that Iran, demographically speaking, is a very young country. There are a lot ( higher percentage than usual ) of people in their 30s and 40s.

[teamsaint]

the powers behind the US throne want a war with Iran. Its just so obvious.

As for the nuclear threat, Iran might possibly be able to cobble one warhead together in the fairly near future, and may or may not be able to deliver it with some sort of accuracy.

Israel has over 400 warheads.

 

(and just to mention, India and Pakistan have lots also).

 

Iraq is not a nuclear threat.

 

Their president may be a bit off the rails (possibly) but amongst world leaders he is in good company.

 

This is nasty stuff....

[buctootim]

Nothing the Iranians have done in the past 10 years is as bad as holding and torturing hundreds of people without charge or trial in a prison located in Cuba because they know the courts would free them if based in the US.

[pap]

Nothing the Iranians have done in the past 10 years is as bad as holding and torturing hundreds of people without charge or trial in a prison located in Cuba because they know the courts would free them if based in the US.

 

True. The US has scant moral authority after the last 10 years of foreign and domestic policy.

[dubai_phil]

Bump.

 

Another attack on Iranian nuclear personnel.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501669

 

Heard from one of my tinfoil hat sources that war is nailed on for October.

 

Nah they have to wait for the UAE to buy their Eurofighters, West won't have enough assets to cover all the Gulf States when they retaliate and start taking out Oil installations

[pap]

Nah they have to wait for the UAE to buy their Eurofighters, West won't have enough assets to cover all the Gulf States when they retaliate and start taking out Oil installations

 

Do you include Israel in your assessment of the West's assets? This may be one they get involved in.

[Window Cleaner]

Nah they have to wait for the UAE to buy their Eurofighters, West won't have enough assets to cover all the Gulf States when they retaliate and start taking out Oil installations

 

 

Really don't think anyone is any too worried about a ramshackle collection of F14s,MiG 29 and Mirage F1s.

Israel has more operational aircraft in operational storage than Iran posesses.

[Thedelldays]

the powers behind the US throne want a war with Iran. Its just so obvious.

As for the nuclear threat, Iran might possibly be able to cobble one warhead together in the fairly near future, and may or may not be able to deliver it with some sort of accuracy.

Israel has over 400 warheads.

 

(and just to mention, India and Pakistan have lots also).

 

Iraq is not a nuclear threat.

Their president may be a bit off the rails (possibly) but amongst world leaders he is in good company.

 

This is nasty stuff....

very very wrong

[dubai_phil]

very very wrong

 

Technically he is correct as he mis-spelt & said Iraq....

 

But IF he meant Iran then it goes into the oh dear category of statements

[pap]

Technically he is correct as he mis-spelt & said Iraq....

 

But IF he meant Iran then it goes into the oh dear category of statements

 

We've been here before, Phil. Remember the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq definitely had and turned out not to?

 

The Iranians would be missing a trick if they weren't developing nuclear weapons at the same time, so I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

 

I am amazed how they have attracted a reputation for being the world's international bad guys. This post-Revolution regime has never invaded another country, and has only been involved in one war. This was against its neighbours Iraq, who were egged on into invading Iran and facilitated by Western powers, notably the US.

 

Then you look at the record of Iran's chief accuser, coincidentally enough, the US. They have started two wars without provocation, making the British government a willing accomplice in the justification for the second. Estimates for deaths caused as a result of the Iraq War hover at around 1.3Million people. Saddam Hussein managed (at most) 200,000 during his tenure as dictator.

 

Which actions of the current Iranian regime justify the tag of international menace? Support for terrorist groups? They are hardly alone on that front.

 

This has been on the cards since the Western-friendly Shah was ousted in 1979. However much we may dislike the principles upon which the country is run, there's no evidence to support the notion that this regime is an international aggressor.

Edited 11 January, 2012 by pap

[dune]

As Albus Dumbledore said: It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.

[Saintandy666]

As Albus Dumbledore said: It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.

 

See, it does work There is a Dumbledore quote for all occasions.

 

 

 

I’m pretty worried about all this stuff though, even if it does seem to slip under a lot of peoples radars. All these happenings point towards something larger soon. I personally hope it just stays at this covert level, because war would be disastrous for everyone. It'd be interesting to see what China would do.

[Sheaf Saint]

We've been here before, Phil. Remember the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq definitely had and turned out not to?

 

The Iranians would be missing a trick if they weren't developing nuclear weapons at the same time, so I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

 

I am amazed how they have attracted a reputation for being the world's international bad guys. This post-Revolution regime has never invaded another country, and has only been involved in one war. This was against its neighbours Iraq, who were egged on into invading Iran and facilitated by Western powers, notably the US.

 

Then you look at the record of Iran's chief accuser, coincidentally enough, the US. They have started two wars without provocation, making the British government a willing accomplice in the justification for the second. Estimates for deaths caused as a result of the Iraq War hover at around 1.3Million people. Saddam Hussein managed (at most) 200,000 during his tenure as dictator.

 

Which actions of the current Iranian regime justify the tag of international menace? Support for terrorist groups? They are hardly alone on that front.

 

This has been on the cards since the Western-friendly Shah was ousted in 1979. However much we may dislike the principles upon which the country is run, there's no evidence to support the notion that this regime is an international aggressor.

 

This coincides nicely with a video that a friend of mine posted on youtube today...

 

 

The idea that Ahmedinijad is building a nuclear bomb to attack Israel is ridiculous IMO for two reasons...

 

Firstly, the whole basis of the conflict in the middle east is the argument over who claims the right to the religious sites in the area, and any nuclear attack would destroy all of the holy sites that both Muslims and Jews hold sacred and therefore defeating the object.

 

Secondly there is the notion of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Not only does Israel have nukes of its own, it is fully supported by the US - world's largest nuclear arsenal. Any nuclear strike on Israel by Iran would undoubtedly be reciprocated many times over. Everybody loses, and I do not believe that Ahmedinijad would be stupid enough to set such a chain of events in motion. He isn't this crazed, barbaric monster that he is made out to be by the western media. Remember the scaremongering by the western news channels over his alleged threat to wipe Israel off the map? Just a tiny amount of digging on the net reveals that this was misquoted, mistranslated and taken completely out of context, and what he actually said was that he believed the current Israeli political regime should be 'wiped from the pages of history'. Given their hugely unjust oppression of the people of Gaza, can anybody blame him for that?

[pap]

Good video, Bexy.

 

Agree with your other points too. It makes no logical sense unless you think Ahmedinijad is some kind of crazed moustache-twirling 24 villain on the road to oblivion.

 

Which many people do, because they don't learn from history and they eat the sh*t they're fed.

Edited 12 January, 2012 by pap

[dune]

I do wonder to what extent the Carlyle Group influence world affairs today, in the same way the Rothschilds influenced policy in regard to the British Empire...

 

I am not anti semitic, but there always has been serious wealth and power exerted from Jewish billionaires.

Edited 11 January, 2012 by dune

[Saintandy666]

I do wonder to what extent the Carlyle Group influence world affairs today, in the same way the Rothschilds influenced policy in regard to the British Empire...

 

I am not anti semitic, but there always has been serious wealth and power exerted from Jewish billionaires.

 

I think there's always been serious wealth from billionaires

 

But seriously, money talks regardless of your background.

[alpine_saint]

The idea that Ahmedinijad is building a nuclear bomb to attack Israel is ridiculous IMO for two reasons...

 

 

So why he is building one then ? Its either to threaten/attack Israel, or to have a terrorist weapons that can pop up anywhere in the world, or to blackmail the worlds oil supplies thru the Straits of Hormuz. Why is the US so keen to site ABM systems in Europe ?

 

You cannot ignore the fact that countries enriching uranium to 20% in order to produce medical isotopes dont spend billions of dollars burying said facilities in the desert under mountains. Even the UN and IAEA reckon Iran is trying to build nukes.

 

Sadly, I am of the opinion that the time to stop Iran has passed. Obama and Israel should never have let Ahmedinejad fuel and start up the Bushrer reactor.

 

Also, dont forget the regime you are dealing with here. They have caused havoc in Iraq, and are propping up Assad in Syria.

[dubai_phil]

We've been here before, Phil. Remember the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq definitely had and turned out not to?

 

The Iranians would be missing a trick if they weren't developing nuclear weapons at the same time, so I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

 

I am amazed how they have attracted a reputation for being the world's international bad guys. This post-Revolution regime has never invaded another country, and has only been involved in one war. This was against its neighbours Iraq, who were egged on into invading Iran and facilitated by Western powers, notably the US.

 

Then you look at the record of Iran's chief accuser, coincidentally enough, the US. They have started two wars without provocation, making the British government a willing accomplice in the justification for the second. Estimates for deaths caused as a result of the Iraq War hover at around 1.3Million people. Saddam Hussein managed (at most) 200,000 during his tenure as dictator.

 

Which actions of the current Iranian regime justify the tag of international menace? Support for terrorist groups? They are hardly alone on that front.

 

This has been on the cards since the Western-friendly Shah was ousted in 1979. However much we may dislike the principles upon which the country is run, there's no evidence to support the notion that this regime is an international aggressor.

 

Bit in bold is VERY wrong - They invaded UAE territory & seized Islands valuable & important to the UAE's Oil Industry. The UN have been banging on about it for years

 

Otherwise

 

Agree totally on the "Dodgy Dossier" type angle. If it was ONLY the US & Israel making noises I'd again agree that it was just the US Military/Industrial complex making noise to maintain expenditure.

 

The thing is however, it isn't.

 

Western media is so utterly Israel/Palestine focused when it comes to the Middle East they miss other subtle nuances.

 

The West "don't particularly like" the Saudi regime & all the repression of human rights there, but support them because of the Oil.

 

To Iran that dislike is one of intense almost hatred, They simply believe that the Saudi interpretation is too LAX for the Custodians of the Holy Sites. Sure they have very public issues with Israel but they ALSO want to replace the Saudi regime with their own. A nuke aimed at Riyadh (or the Straits of Hormuz) would have far greater global consequences economically than one or two missiles lobbed at Israel before they get obliterated themselves. (And possibly in terms of casualties as well).

 

So in the case of Iran, the track record of seeking WMD is FAR more solid than the Iraq dreams. It started with a strong legitimate IT Distribution Company here (SMB Computers they were the Epson Disty) getting nailed for supplying the initial knowledge & equipment (Centrifuges) to specifications built by the father of Pakistan's bomb (A Q Khan.) They were busted by a mix of the local offices of FBI & CIA in Jebel Ali & Dubai Police. Their trail uncovered a global smuggling ring which Bush then referred to.

 

Again, taking the tainted Western Media info feeds away, you find the opposite opinion is true - namely that just about everyone down here has no doubt whatsoever that they are building a Bomb. It's not just a "being a Pariah" thing, it's in the whole Culture of "face"

 

Again, the Iranians have a track record, they have seized Islands belonging to other countries in the Gulf, they have demanded passenger aircraft change their inflight AirShow maps to rename Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf (or was it vice versa) or they would shoot them down or arrest the crew if they landed.

 

When even the Russians start to get "concerned" about their friends in Iran then so should the West.

 

Iran has form in meddling outside their broders, something Saddam only did with the Iranians.

 

Anyway the ONLY reason this is a problem is because the Yanks decided to blow Iraq up - THEY were the buffer to Iran. Saddam wanted WMD's? well of course he did - Iran HIS enemy was getting them...

 

Iran dreams of the great "Shia Mega State" and works to support/control new political groups in all the Arab Spring Countriies.

 

Appeasement ain't gonna work.

 

And first Strike against them ain't gonna help matters either. It'll be Israel that goes in - as they already are with their car bombs.

 

War with Iran started several years ago

Edited 12 January, 2012 by dubai_phil

[dubai_phil]

Oh and again Bexy shows ignorance (forgiveable) about Nukes & Holy Sites. (I mean that in a Western Media Israel/Palestine focused way)

 

It need NOT be only about Israel's Holy Sites. You could Nuke Riyadh or (FAR WORSE) Dharran which would destroy Saudi's Government or worse the global economy by wiping out 80% of their oil.

 

Mecca Medina etc would still be several thousand miles away and perfectly safe

 

Each scenario is possible is my point

[pap]

Bit in bold is VERY wrong - They invaded UAE territory & seized Islands valuable & important to the UAE's Oil Industry. The UN have been banging on about it for years

 

The islands you're referring to are the Tunb Islands. These were captured in 1971 when the Shah was in power. The Iranian Revolution happened in 1979.

 

So I say again, this regime has never invaded another country.

 

I don't think anyone on here is disputing that the Iranians probably are building the bomb.

 

Yet history shows that:-

 

a) The present Iranian regime has never attacked another country

b) No-one that has the bomb has ever used it on another country, save for the Yanks in Japan when it was first invented and no-one else had it.

 

So how are you making the leap that Iran would?

[Sheaf Saint]

So why he is building one then ? Its either to threaten/attack Israel, or to have a terrorist weapons that can pop up anywhere in the world, or to blackmail the worlds oil supplies thru the Straits of Hormuz. Why is the US so keen to site ABM systems in Europe ?

 

You cannot ignore the fact that countries enriching uranium to 20% in order to produce medical isotopes dont spend billions of dollars burying said facilities in the desert under mountains. Even the UN and IAEA reckon Iran is trying to build nukes.

 

Sadly, I am of the opinion that the time to stop Iran has passed. Obama and Israel should never have let Ahmedinejad fuel and start up the Bushrer reactor.

 

Also, dont forget the regime you are dealing with here. They have caused havoc in Iraq, and are propping up Assad in Syria.

 

I would be much happier about the UN/IAEA trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms if everybody else gave up theirs. Why is it OK for countries like the US to have them but tell other countries they aren't allowed to?

 

I am far more concerned about the existing nukes in Pakistan than the future possibility of Iran getting them.

 

Edit: With regard to your point about Iran causing havoc in Iraq - what do you expect? The two countries were at war for years while Saddam had the full backing of the US/UK. They already had the Americans occupying Afghanistan to the east, do you really believe that they would just sit back and watch while they took control of their western neighbour and former hated adversary?

Edited 12 January, 2012 by Sheaf Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

Oh and again Bexy shows ignorance (forgiveable) about Nukes & Holy Sites. (I mean that in a Western Media Israel/Palestine focused way)

 

It need NOT be only about Israel's Holy Sites. You could Nuke Riyadh or (FAR WORSE) Dharran which would destroy Saudi's Government or worse the global economy by wiping out 80% of their oil.

 

Mecca Medina etc would still be several thousand miles away and perfectly safe

 

Each scenario is possible is my point

 

Point taken Phil, but my post was about the dispute over the claims to the holy lands currently inside Israeli borders (Jerusalem etc...) which is the entire basis of the tensions between Jews and Muslims in the area and the sole reason why the clerics in charge of Iran have beef with Israel.

[pap]

Edit: With regard to your point about Iran causing havoc in Iraq - what do you expect? The two countries were at war for years while Saddam had the full backing of the US/UK. They already had the Americans occupying Afghanistan to the east, do you really believe that they would just sit back and watch while they took control of their western neighbour and former hated adversary?

 

To add to that, the havoc that Iran have created has caused nowhere near as much damage as the meddling of Western powers.

[dubai_phil]

Point taken Phil, but my post was about the dispute over the claims to the holy lands currently inside Israeli borders (Jerusalem etc...) which is the entire basis of the tensions between Jews and Muslims in the area and the sole reason why the clerics in charge of Iran have beef with Israel.

 

Yep hence I gave you a

 

But and this is a key point, there are equal disputes & contentions between the different Islamic factions.

 

The issue of FACE is the one the West still doesn't understand. You CANNOT tell an "Arab" what to do and the "West" has been guilty of that since forever.

Bluster, showing how big your p3nis is, having posh cars are as much of a part of the psyche as anything else. (That's why Saddam got walloped - it was 90% bluster)

 

Thing is the Boss blusters and underlings then go off on one to show the boss they are good and deserve to move up the gravy train/chain

 

Point is it all comes back to Bush & Blair & Dodgy dossiers. They should have stayed the hell away from Saddam and the Iranians would have stayed focused on nuking HIM (and vice versa). Now all they have to rein in their bluster are threats from the US (I mean c'mon, they REALLY aren't going to invade Iran, it's too damned BIG for a start) and they cannot do selective shock & awe because before you know it Silkworms will be blasting Oil Tankers to block the Straits of Hormuz & interupt oil to the Iphone factories in China...

 

The ONLY choice is to do what the Israelis are doing or to carry out a first strike. The CIA lost the handbook on counter revolutions decades ago

[alpine_saint]

To add to that, the havoc that Iran have created has caused nowhere near as much damage as the meddling of Western powers.

 

If I has a choice between Westen "meddling" and an Iran dominated Middle East, I know which one I choose.

 

I cannot believe the crap apologia for Iran being spouted on this thread in the name of being uppity with US foreign policy....

[alpine_saint]

Yep hence I gave you a

 

But and this is a key point, there are equal disputes & contentions between the different Islamic factions.

 

The issue of FACE is the one the West still doesn't understand. You CANNOT tell an "Arab" what to do and the "West" has been guilty of that since forever.

Bluster, showing how big your p3nis is, having posh cars are as much of a part of the psyche as anything else. (That's why Saddam got walloped - it was 90% bluster)

 

Thing is the Boss blusters and underlings then go off on one to show the boss they are good and deserve to move up the gravy train/chain

 

Point is it all comes back to Bush & Blair & Dodgy dossiers. They should have stayed the hell away from Saddam and the Iranians would have stayed focused on nuking HIM (and vice versa). Now all they have to rein in their bluster are threats from the US (I mean c'mon, they REALLY aren't going to invade Iran, it's too damned BIG for a start) and they cannot do selective shock & awe because before you know it Silkworms will be blasting Oil Tankers to block the Straits of Hormuz & interupt oil to the Iphone factories in China...

 

The ONLY choice is to do what the Israelis are doing or to carry out a first strike. The CIA lost the handbook on counter revolutions decades ago

 

Personally I am glad that Mossad are on the case.

[buctootim]

If I has a choice between Westen "meddling" and an Iran dominated Middle East, I know which one I choose.

 

I cannot believe the crap apologia for Iran being spouted on this thread in the name of being uppity with US foreign policy....

 

What exactly has Iran done wrong?

[alpine_saint]

What exactly has Iran done wrong?

 

Iran is responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism over the past 30 years and is therefore culpable or directly involved in the deaths of thousands via events such as 9/11, the Bali bombing, 7/7, etc.

 

and now it wants nukes to do its bidding.

[Sheaf Saint]

Iran is responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism over the past 30 years and is therefore culpable or directly involved in the deaths of thousands via events such as 9/11, the Bali bombing, 7/7, etc.

 

and now it wants nukes to do its bidding.

 

Wrong I'm afraid Alps. Islamic fundamentalism as we now know it (Al-Qaeda, Taliban etc...) originates from Saudi Arabia. But because the Saudi rulers are bed partners with the big American oil companies, the western news doesn't report that.

[buctootim]

Wrong I'm afraid Alps. Islamic fundamentalism as we now know it (Al-Qaeda, Taliban etc...) originates from Saudi Arabia. But because the Saudi rulers are bed partners with the big American oil companies, the western news doesn't report that.

 

Quite. Iran was a multi party democracy in 1953 with a legitimate government. The UK/US didnt like their uppity plans to nationlise oil interests so caused a coup and and installed the widely hated Shah as a puppet. The messy Iranian revolution was a direct consequence. The whole history of US foreign policy is ham fisted meddling which creates the problems they claim to be trying to avoid.

Edited 12 January, 2012 by buctootim

[pap]

Iran is responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism over the past 30 years and is therefore culpable or directly involved in the deaths of thousands via events such as 9/11, the Bali bombing, 7/7, etc.

 

and now it wants nukes to do its bidding.

 

Sorry, mate - you are spouting utter nonsense. First, tell me what links there are between Iran and the atrocities you mention.

 

If anyone has been responsible for fermenting anti-Western sentiment, it has been the West over the last ten years. The US had the ear and co-operation of the world immediately after 9/11. So what does it do? Starts invading Muslim countries and places Iran on an Axis of Evil, despite no evidence of international aggression save the noise of espionage.

 

Step back for a moment and consider that. Axis of Evil. It sounds like something from an 80s kids cartoon, ffs.

 

The simple fact is that this present regime has done nothing to remotely justify the tag of international bad guys. Those who accuse it of being a rogue state are responsible for millions of deaths in the past decade.

 

Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of a nice scary story, eh?

[pap]

A very interesting read from 2002, shortly after George W. Bush denounced Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil.

 

http://www.salon.com/2002/02/07/tehran/

 

The result of that label? The return of anti-American rhetoric, weakening of reformers and played right into the hands of Iranian hard-liners.

 

The article addresses Iran/Al Qaeda specifically.

 

As for the allegations that Iran has been meddling in the affairs of Afghanistan or harboring al-Qaida fugitives, officials here categorically deny them. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told reporters in a news conference Wednesday: “It is known to all that we played an effective part in helping establish this government in Afghanistan. It is not logical for us to weaken a government we have worked so hard to bring about.” He also asked the U.S. to give Iran any information it has about al-Qaida fugitives so that the Iranian authorities could try to track them down, a statement interpreted as a gesture of goodwill.

 

 

At the special Friday prayers, Ayatollah Ahmad Janati reinforced that comment, pointing out that it would make no sense for Iran to be sheltering al-Qaida fighters when Iran has been battling them for so many years. The Taliban regime and the Islamic Republic were enemies long before Sept. 11, with matters reaching bottom when eight Iranian diplomats and a journalist were murdered in Mazar-e-Sharif in 1998.