WWIII. America in final preperations to attack Iran?

[Park Life 71]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

 

"US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres."

 

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

 

 

And from last years New Yorker. Excellent writing as usual.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

 

 

"Current and forme American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The official say that President Bush is determined to deny th Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilo program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium"

 

 

Madness obvioulsy and probably the same completey delusional planning that has seen the utter fuck up in Iraq.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Parky

[Rob W 0]

Well that's what planning staff are supposed to do Parky, PLAN

 

 

its the politicos who take the decisions

[Park Life 71]

Well that's what planning staff are supposed to do Parky, PLAN

 

 

its the politicos who take the decisions

 

 

Based on all this readiness, do you think they will do it?

[Tom 14021]

Were all fucked,

 

 

What the need is a charity rock concert or..

 

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2208523152

 

Edited February 23, 2007 by T-Keith

[Isegrim 10017]

"Planning"

[Rob W 0]

"It'll be a walk over!! they will welcome us with open arms!!"

[Tom_NUFC 0]

I'm not sure that Blair or anyone else would dare to send any of our lot..... then again.

[Jimbo 175]

I'm not sure that Blair or anyone else would dare to send any of our lot..... then again.

 

Are there any left ? we've resorted in selecting members of the Royal Family, they'll be sending over the cast of Hollyoaks next.

[The Fish 11080]

interesting that Bush has said he wants to "solve the Iranian question" before the end of his second term. Blatantly trying to force through his agenda while he still has some degree of power and it will leave the following President into a war that will cost hundreds more lives, billions more dollars and with no clear victory in sight.

 

Apparently an adviser to Robert Gates (Defense Secretary) has said that military action may lead to Congress impeaching the President.

 

The Times, echoing concerns in the Butler report, (whilst acknowledging that US mistakes were were primarily to blame) question the lack of influence that the UK had over the debacle in Iraq. It suggests that the government "did not have it's eye on the ball", blaming Blairs current trend of middle of the road governing.

 

trouble is, any public hearings will and slap bang in the middle of pre-election fwever, leaving Brown having to defend the war while trying to win votes.

 

not an easy task at all, but made even worse when he's about as presedential* as a box jellyfish. Civil servants be wary, the Conservatives will win this next election and with that comes job cuts and privatisation in the public sector...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* I say presedential because UK politics have less and less to do with policy and are more and more like the American-style popularity contest. Style over content.

[Fop 1]

I dunno that it would be a good idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons either (the USA can't invade them, they don't have the manpower left, just bomb nuclear targets maybe), they aren't exactly a nice state.

 

The Iranian government makes Bush look like a liberal socalist tbh , and they don't have to worry about being voted out (they just ban any candiates they don't like to play pretend democrasy).

 

 

 

If Iran DO get nuclear weapons (and that is clearly what they are trying to do) then it is very likely that any nuclear WWIII would start with them playing a major role.

[Park Life 71]

interesting that Bush has said he wants to "solve the Iranian question" before the end of his second term. Blatantly trying to force through his agenda while he still has some degree of power and it will leave the following President into a war that will cost hundreds more lives, billions more dollars and with no clear victory in sight.

 

Apparently an adviser to Robert Gates (Defense Secretary) has said that military action may lead to Congress impeaching the President.

 

The Times, echoing concerns in the Butler report, (whilst acknowledging that US mistakes were were primarily to blame) question the lack of influence that the UK had over the debacle in Iraq. It suggests that the government "did not have it's eye on the ball", blaming Blairs current trend of middle of the road governing.

 

trouble is, any public hearings will and slap bang in the middle of pre-election fwever, leaving Brown having to defend the war while trying to win votes.

 

not an easy task at all, but made even worse when he's about as presedential* as a box jellyfish. Civil servants be wary, the Conservatives will win this next election and with that comes job cuts and privatisation in the public sector...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* I say presedential because UK politics have less and less to do with policy and are more and more like the American-style popularity contest. Style over content.

 

 

Excellent post Fish.

 

 

 

If I could expand a touch. Iran is a special case - compared to Iraq there are far greater military perils and of course the key differance is a Govt with broad civilian support who are well versed and politicised in the threat America poses. Iranians also have very long memories with regard to Yankee meddling in their affairs.

Iranians remember Savak the former interior security organisation set up by the Shah with help and support from the CIA. Favourite tortures inc strapping the hapless victims to a bed of wires which was then electrifyied till it became red hot. Films Savak made of their torture of Iranian women include the burning of nipples with cigarettes. At the height of the backing of the Shah 'Savak' had 60.000 officers. The CIA made the mistake of distributing such films to other puppet Govt, operatives to show them 'how things were done'. One can say these were the 'bad old days of the CIA', but the seeds of the birth of the new revolutionary Iran. The Shah in the 60's continued to be portrayed as a Western friendly leader and some kind of policeman against Shia Islam. On June 3rd 1963 and to mark the day of martyrdom at Kerbala - Khomeni finally denounced the Shah publicly and of course the rest is history. The Shah desperate at the time passed a new law giving American 'personnel' inside Iran immunity from prosecution for any acts they might commit. This became a blunder of some comical proportions that finally gave the average Iranian the signal that their country was moving to the endgame.

[The Fish 11080]

I agree with Fop in that Iran mustn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. It's not because certain countries should have the authority to dictate to others, but... to put it simply, no country which celebrates martyrdom and does not vocally admonish extremists (nevermind the fact they "elect" them), should get within two thousand miles of nuclear launch codes.

 

What would happen if an extremist party decide they want to obliterate the infidels and storm a nuclear facility? I have no faith in the guards, procedures and contingencies of this, or any other religion0lead state.

 

Obviously I await a flood of replies declaring that the US are religion lead and that their leader is a fanatic himself. However the global barometer measures Bush far lower down on the scale of narrow minded bigotry than it does the Shariah law countries.

 

Bush is just the monkey dancing to the organs grinder's tune, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a zealot.

 

In my opinion education is what these coutnries fear the most, the more you educate the people, the less easily provoked and persuaded they are. I think that every person deserves a parity of freedom and choice and a genuine education. I'm aware that this sounds arrogant, who am I to decide that our way of life is more righteous than theirs. At the end of the day though the "answer to the Iranian question" won't be solved by American bombs or western aid. The Iranian "question" must be answered by the Iranian people. It's their problem and should be a natural progression, not one forced by western greed for oil.

 

With Nuclear weapons though, this problem is most definitely one that needs addressing now. One fanatical group could bring nuclear war to the world. And for the good of the world, this cannot be allowed to happen.

 

it was shortsighted policy by western governments that has produced this maelstrom, so unfortunately we cannot back out, we need to at the very least, act responsibly.

[Park Life 71]

I agree with Fop in that Iran mustn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. It's not because certain countries should have the authority to dictate to others, but... to put it simply, no country which celebrates martyrdom and does not vocally admonish extremists (nevermind the fact they "elect" them), should get within two thousand miles of nuclear launch codes.

 

What would happen if an extremist party decide they want to obliterate the infidels and storm a nuclear facility? I have no faith in the guards, procedures and contingencies of this, or any other religion0lead state.

 

Obviously I await a flood of replies declaring that the US are religion lead and that their leader is a fanatic himself. However the global barometer measures Bush far lower down on the scale of narrow minded bigotry than it does the Shariah law countries.

 

Bush is just the monkey dancing to the organs grinder's tune, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a zealot.

 

In my opinion education is what these coutnries fear the most, the more you educate the people, the less easily provoked and persuaded they are. I think that every person deserves a parity of freedom and choice and a genuine education. I'm aware that this sounds arrogant, who am I to decide that our way of life is more righteous than theirs. At the end of the day though the "answer to the Iranian question" won't be solved by American bombs or western aid. The Iranian "question" must be answered by the Iranian people. It's their problem and should be a natural progression, not one forced by western greed for oil.

 

With Nuclear weapons though, this problem is most definitely one that needs addressing now. One fanatical group could bring nuclear war to the world. And for the good of the world, this cannot be allowed to happen.

 

it was shortsighted policy by western governments that has produced this maelstrom, so unfortunately we cannot back out, we need to at the very least, act responsibly.

 

 

Are people also against Pakistan having nuclear weapons...Argually a regime just as unbalanced (if not more so) than Iran?

 

 

From the New Yorker article:

 

The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec.”

 

I personally think it will be utter madness invading or attacking Iran...Might as well kiss goodbye to having any kind of peace in the next 20 years.

[The Fish 11080]

I don't think that ANYONE should have nuclear weapons but as it is, the more western civilisation restricts the proliferation of weapons with the potential to spark armageddon the better.

 

 

I think there should be; a considerable history of consistent, progressive government, evidence of unfettered access to education for all people, the freedom to practise whatever religion you please (without impinging on others rights), an inspection of facilities by the UN annually. Procedural mandatories and strict cohesion to what exactly the development is for.

 

Basically I think the regulations and rules surrounding the possession and development of nuclear weapons should be so inhibitive so as to render owning a nuclear weapon fruitless.

 

and that should be the case for ALL countries.

[Fop 1]

I agree with Fop in that Iran mustn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. It's not because certain countries should have the authority to dictate to others, but... to put it simply, no country which celebrates martyrdom and does not vocally admonish extremists (nevermind the fact they "elect" them), should get within two thousand miles of nuclear launch codes.

 

What would happen if an extremist party decide they want to obliterate the infidels and storm a nuclear facility? I have no faith in the guards, procedures and contingencies of this, or any other religion0lead state.

 

Obviously I await a flood of replies declaring that the US are religion lead and that their leader is a fanatic himself. However the global barometer measures Bush far lower down on the scale of narrow minded bigotry than it does the Shariah law countries.

 

Bush is just the monkey dancing to the organs grinder's tune, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a zealot.

 

In my opinion education is what these coutnries fear the most, the more you educate the people, the less easily provoked and persuaded they are. I think that every person deserves a parity of freedom and choice and a genuine education. I'm aware that this sounds arrogant, who am I to decide that our way of life is more righteous than theirs. At the end of the day though the "answer to the Iranian question" won't be solved by American bombs or western aid. The Iranian "question" must be answered by the Iranian people. It's their problem and should be a natural progression, not one forced by western greed for oil.

 

With Nuclear weapons though, this problem is most definitely one that needs addressing now. One fanatical group could bring nuclear war to the world. And for the good of the world, this cannot be allowed to happen.

 

it was shortsighted policy by western governments that has produced this maelstrom, so unfortunately we cannot back out, we need to at the very least, act responsibly.

 

 

 

It's there that the current Iranian governement have played a masterstroke, in 1998-2000 there were genuine rumbles of discontent and pro-true democrasy movements within Iran.

 

They masterfully quashed this and then followed it up with an amazing campaign of spin on nuclear options.... there is no CND in Iran, broadly their is nothing but support for nuclear power and to a slightly lesser degree nuclear weaponary.

 

Arguably if there was more freedom of information in Iran this wouldn't be the case, but currently that's a pretty moot point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interestingly it's not been the USA that's taken the lead on Iranian nuclear weapons, but the EU, which broadly IMO suggests this is an issue to be concerned about, it's not cowboy Bush rushing in where he probably should not, so much as a genuine danger that concerns most right thinking governments.

 

 

I would actually put Iran with weapons ahead of North Korea in terms of potential danger (and N Korea is by far the most dangerous of the nuclear capable states), simply due to the zealot mentality that pervades that countries ruling powers, pretty much across the board.

 

If Iran thought they could get away with droping a nuclear weapon on Isreal I am pretty sure they would, of course them being in a postion to do that is another issue, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

Also I wouldn't put it past them to supply other groups with if not nuclear weaponary, at least dirty bomb type material, as they are currently supplying factions in Iraq.

[Park Life 71]

I agree with Fop in that Iran mustn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. It's not because certain countries should have the authority to dictate to others, but... to put it simply, no country which celebrates martyrdom and does not vocally admonish extremists (nevermind the fact they "elect" them), should get within two thousand miles of nuclear launch codes.

 

What would happen if an extremist party decide they want to obliterate the infidels and storm a nuclear facility? I have no faith in the guards, procedures and contingencies of this, or any other religion0lead state.

 

Obviously I await a flood of replies declaring that the US are religion lead and that their leader is a fanatic himself. However the global barometer measures Bush far lower down on the scale of narrow minded bigotry than it does the Shariah law countries.

 

Bush is just the monkey dancing to the organs grinder's tune, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a zealot.

 

In my opinion education is what these coutnries fear the most, the more you educate the people, the less easily provoked and persuaded they are. I think that every person deserves a parity of freedom and choice and a genuine education. I'm aware that this sounds arrogant, who am I to decide that our way of life is more righteous than theirs. At the end of the day though the "answer to the Iranian question" won't be solved by American bombs or western aid. The Iranian "question" must be answered by the Iranian people. It's their problem and should be a natural progression, not one forced by western greed for oil.

 

With Nuclear weapons though, this problem is most definitely one that needs addressing now. One fanatical group could bring nuclear war to the world. And for the good of the world, this cannot be allowed to happen.

 

it was shortsighted policy by western governments that has produced this maelstrom, so unfortunately we cannot back out, we need to at the very least, act responsibly.

 

 

 

It's there that the current Iranian governement have played a masterstroke, in 1998-2000 there were genuine rumbles of discontent and pro-true democrasy movements within Iran.

 

They masterfully quashed this and then followed it up with an amazing campaign of spin on nuclear options.... there is no CND in Iran, broadly their is nothing but support for nuclear power and to a slightly lesser degree nuclear weaponary.

 

Arguably if there was more freedom of information in Iran this wouldn't be the case, but currently that's a pretty moot point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interestingly it's not been the USA that's taken the lead on Iranian nuclear weapons, but the EU, which broadly IMO suggests this is an issue to be concerned about, it's not cowboy Bush rushing in where he probably should not, so much as a genuine danger that concerns most right thinking governments.

 

 

I would actually put Iran with weapons ahead of North Korea in terms of potential danger (and N Korea is by far the most dangerous of the nuclear capable states), simply due to the zealot mentality that pervades that countries ruling powers, pretty much across the board.

 

If Iran thought they could get away with droping a nuclear weapon on Isreal I am pretty sure they would, of course them being in a postion to do that is another issue, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

Also I wouldn't put it past them to supply other groups with if not nuclear weaponary, at least dirty bomb type material, as they are currently supplying factions in Iraq.

 

1. Do you have evidence for this?

 

2. Pure supposition.....Albeit the current propaganda.

[Fop 1]

I agree with Fop in that Iran mustn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. It's not because certain countries should have the authority to dictate to others, but... to put it simply, no country which celebrates martyrdom and does not vocally admonish extremists (nevermind the fact they "elect" them), should get within two thousand miles of nuclear launch codes.

 

What would happen if an extremist party decide they want to obliterate the infidels and storm a nuclear facility? I have no faith in the guards, procedures and contingencies of this, or any other religion0lead state.

 

Obviously I await a flood of replies declaring that the US are religion lead and that their leader is a fanatic himself. However the global barometer measures Bush far lower down on the scale of narrow minded bigotry than it does the Shariah law countries.

 

Bush is just the monkey dancing to the organs grinder's tune, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a zealot.

 

In my opinion education is what these coutnries fear the most, the more you educate the people, the less easily provoked and persuaded they are. I think that every person deserves a parity of freedom and choice and a genuine education. I'm aware that this sounds arrogant, who am I to decide that our way of life is more righteous than theirs. At the end of the day though the "answer to the Iranian question" won't be solved by American bombs or western aid. The Iranian "question" must be answered by the Iranian people. It's their problem and should be a natural progression, not one forced by western greed for oil.

 

With Nuclear weapons though, this problem is most definitely one that needs addressing now. One fanatical group could bring nuclear war to the world. And for the good of the world, this cannot be allowed to happen.

 

it was shortsighted policy by western governments that has produced this maelstrom, so unfortunately we cannot back out, we need to at the very least, act responsibly.

 

 

 

It's there that the current Iranian governement have played a masterstroke, in 1998-2000 there were genuine rumbles of discontent and pro-true democrasy movements within Iran.

 

They masterfully quashed this and then followed it up with an amazing campaign of spin on nuclear options.... there is no CND in Iran, broadly their is nothing but support for nuclear power and to a slightly lesser degree nuclear weaponary.

 

Arguably if there was more freedom of information in Iran this wouldn't be the case, but currently that's a pretty moot point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interestingly it's not been the USA that's taken the lead on Iranian nuclear weapons, but the EU, which broadly IMO suggests this is an issue to be concerned about, it's not cowboy Bush rushing in where he probably should not, so much as a genuine danger that concerns most right thinking governments.

 

 

I would actually put Iran with weapons ahead of North Korea in terms of potential danger (and N Korea is by far the most dangerous of the nuclear capable states), simply due to the zealot mentality that pervades that countries ruling powers, pretty much across the board.

 

If Iran thought they could get away with droping a nuclear weapon on Isreal I am pretty sure they would, of course them being in a postion to do that is another issue, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

Also I wouldn't put it past them to supply other groups with if not nuclear weaponary, at least dirty bomb type material, as they are currently supplying factions in Iraq.

 

1. Do you have evidence for this?

 

2. Pure supposition.....Albeit the current propaganda.

 

 

1. Er.... yes, the EU have been doing this for a long while now, pay attention to world affairs it tends to help. Bush and the US have grumbled about Iran for a long time, but it's only been fairly recently that they've started to genuinely threaten, especially on the nuclear issue, the EU have been working on this for a long time now.

 

 

2. Is almost certainly true (it is hardly the sum of Iraqs problems, but equally it adds to them), it benefits Iran in many, many ways to keep Iraq unstable, it would be insane for them not to be doing so tbh as it cost them next to nothing and furthers so very many of their adgendas and goals.

If you've got one piece of credible evidence or even just suppostion on why they aren't doing that, I'd like to hear it.

 

 

 

Edit - opps 2. was refering to Iran bombing Isreal...... they (Iran - the president and government) have pretty much SAID SO for one. Is that enough?

 

Admittedly I very much doubt a situation where they'd dare to actually DO SO is unlikely, but history is full of examples of unlikely things happening. Far, far, far better never to give Iran the chance (given how many people think the UK should get rid of thier I'm amazed how few think it would even be slightly bad for Iran to develope them).

Edited February 24, 2007 by Fop

[The Fish 11080]

 

2. Pure supposition.....Albeit the current propaganda.

 

 

haway man Parky it's not a fucking stretch is it?

 

Even if it isn't the government itself I'm sure there are a plethora of zealots fizzing at the slit to get their hans/hooks on the launch codes so they can wipe these pesky Jews (who bang on about a genocide that never happened... honestly ) off the face of the planet.

[Park Life 71]

 

2. Pure supposition.....Albeit the current propaganda.

 

 

haway man Parky it's not a fucking stretch is it?

 

Even if it isn't the government itself I'm sure there are a plethora of zealots fizzing at the slit to get their hans/hooks on the launch codes so they can wipe these pesky Jews (who bang on about a genocide that never happened... honestly ) off the face of the planet.

 

Israel has over 100 warheads - dozens of which are submarine based...Iran would be toast. I don't think they would really want go ahead with a strategy which would be the extinction of their country.

[Fop 1]

 

2. Pure supposition.....Albeit the current propaganda.

 

 

haway man Parky it's not a fucking stretch is it?

 

Even if it isn't the government itself I'm sure there are a plethora of zealots fizzing at the slit to get their hans/hooks on the launch codes so they can wipe these pesky Jews (who bang on about a genocide that never happened... honestly ) off the face of the planet.

 

Israel has over 100 warheads - dozens of which are submarine based...Iran would be toast. I don't think they would really want go ahead with a strategy which would be the extinction of their country.

 

 

They wouldn't (if you remember before they realised what a mire Iraq would become for the USA they were running scared of actually being physically invade by the USA, since that is now out of the question their postitions have changed considerably), but IF they could get away with it they would.

 

At present highly unlikely, but as I've said much more unlikely things have come to pass.

[The Fish 11080]

 

 

Israel has over 100 warheads - dozens of which are submarine based...Iran would be toast. I don't think they would really want go ahead with a strategy which would be the extinction of their country.

 

 

yes because they don't believe in martyrdom do they... oh no wait..

[Park Life 71]

 

2. Pure supposition.....Albeit the current propaganda.

 

 

haway man Parky it's not a fucking stretch is it?

 

Even if it isn't the government itself I'm sure there are a plethora of zealots fizzing at the slit to get their hans/hooks on the launch codes so they can wipe these pesky Jews (who bang on about a genocide that never happened... honestly ) off the face of the planet.

 

Israel has over 100 warheads - dozens of which are submarine based...Iran would be toast. I don't think they would really want go ahead with a strategy which would be the extinction of their country.

 

 

They wouldn't (if you remember before they realised what a mire Iraq would become for the USA they were running scared of actually being physically invade by the USA, since that is now out of the question their postitions have changed considerably), but IF they could get away with it they would.

 

At present highly unlikely, but as I've said much more unlikely things have come to pass.

 

So infact in essence you're saying it's highly unlikely..

 

Btw..USA don't have the troops, will/popular support or now the balance of congress has changed techinical ability to invade Iran. Just summat I picked up on my scouring of 'world affairs'.

 

My main concern is that Israel will do something, inevitably drawing America in and us in to some degree.

 

In the 'highly unlikely event' Iran attacks Israel.....Tell me why are we to be so concerned about it? Is Israel national security our concern....?

[Park Life 71]

 

 

Israel has over 100 warheads - dozens of which are submarine based...Iran would be toast. I don't think they would really want go ahead with a strategy which would be the extinction of their country.

 

 

yes because they don't believe in martyrdom do they... oh no wait..

 

 

Gosh that's stretching the mad mullah, every towel head is a terroist theme a bit...I don't think it would run to carrying out action that would guarantee the extinction of Iran...Nuclear winter etc...Do you really think everyone in the Iranian leadership is some kind of psychotic nutcase? I mean how do they manage to carry on world affairs and get China, Russia and India on their side in the U.N.?

 

You want to take a look at the birth of Israel and who's soldiers they were killing....

Edited February 24, 2007 by Parky

[Fop 1]

 

2. Pure supposition.....Albeit the current propaganda.

 

 

haway man Parky it's not a fucking stretch is it?

 

Even if it isn't the government itself I'm sure there are a plethora of zealots fizzing at the slit to get their hans/hooks on the launch codes so they can wipe these pesky Jews (who bang on about a genocide that never happened... honestly ) off the face of the planet.

 

Israel has over 100 warheads - dozens of which are submarine based...Iran would be toast. I don't think they would really want go ahead with a strategy which would be the extinction of their country.

 

 

They wouldn't (if you remember before they realised what a mire Iraq would become for the USA they were running scared of actually being physically invade by the USA, since that is now out of the question their postitions have changed considerably), but IF they could get away with it they would.

 

At present highly unlikely, but as I've said much more unlikely things have come to pass.

 

So infact in essence you're saying it's highly unlikely..

 

In fact in essence and reality THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE SAID RIGHT FROM THE START.

 

i.e.:

If Iran thought they could get away with droping a nuclear weapon on Isreal I am pretty sure they would, of course them being in a postion to do that is another issue, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

So I don’t see what you’re getting at tbh, oh no I’ve said WHAT I SAID ALL ALONG… how terribly “silly” of me.

 

 

Btw..USA don't have the troops, will/popular support or now the balance of congress has changed techinical ability to invade Iran. Just summat I picked up on my scouring of 'world affairs'.

 

Yup again that’s been the case for a while, but pre-Iraq and in the early days of Iraq (before the quagmire of the insurgence and security issues – remember the military part of the operation went quite well, this issue as ever is in the peacekeeping), Iran was very concerned about the USA having the both the might and the will to invade them.

 

My main concern is that Israel will do something, inevitably drawing America in and us in to some degree.

 

Israel won’t, they tend to mostly only massively overreact to aggression, but the recent Lebanon conflict has likely put a curb on that as they didn’t exactly lose, but didn’t win militarily and hugely lost politically and in standing in the eyes of their enemies.

 

 

In the 'highly unlikely event' Iran attacks Israel.....Tell me why are we to be so concerned about it? Is Israel national security our concern....?

 

Erm…. you think using nuclear devices in anger is something NOT to be concerned about?

 

For a start it would kill a LOT of people directly, and a lot more indirectly (and not necessarily in that specific area either).

 

Secondly it could well trigger a much wider conflict, especially if Iran trades nuclear capability with its close allies.

 

You’ve lost the plot here IMO.

[Fop 1]

 

 

Israel has over 100 warheads - dozens of which are submarine based...Iran would be toast. I don't think they would really want go ahead with a strategy which would be the extinction of their country.

 

 

yes because they don't believe in martyrdom do they... oh no wait..

 

 

Gosh that's stretching the mad mullah, every towel head is a terroist theme a bit...I don't think it would run to carrying out action that would guarantee the extinction of Iran...Nuclear winter etc...Do you really think everyone in the Iranian leadership is some kind of psychotic nutcase? I mean how do they manage to carry on world affairs and get China, Russia and India on their side in the U.N.?

 

You want to take a look at the birth of Israel and who's soldiers they were killing....

 

 

If you think that affairs in the UN with the likes of Russia, China and India have more to do with "supporting Iran" (or anyone else) rather than looking after their own interests and/or pushing back the interests of the USA and/or EU then I just don't know what to say.

 

You need to take a course in politics or something tbh.

 

 

 

But yes unfortunately the Iranian regime is FULL of zealots and frankly probably a few psychotic nutcases, it doesn't take too many of them too cause problems, just ONE (or a few) in the right postion(s)...... just look at the early 2oth century or frankly look at Bush himself, both prove that point to a certain degree.