Muppets planning Armageddon.

[Fop 1]

You're saying dinnerjacket is brighter than Bush. Nuke them I say!

 

The thing is it would be very, very difficult to get a nuclear weapon or nuclear material into the UK (impossible maybe), but get one into the English Channel, or off the coast? Much more likely.

 

 

The fact is nuclear weapons as a genuine military option are almost obsolete - no country would use them pro-actively as they are a death wish.

 

But using them in other more subvert ways is something I think we'll eventually see, much like 40 years ago islamic suicide bombers were practically unheard of.

 

 

Frankly I'd always rather have a madman or a dim extremist in charge of a country than an intelligent person with an agenda and a plan.

 

Not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying Muslim countries/ Arab countries are more likely to proliferate or use nukes? Historically of course that isn't the case.

 

India, Pakistan, Israel and South Africa all developed their nukes with the help of the U.S.A, Russia and the U.K.

 

No (although you're falling into your own trap by suggesting it).

 

 

 

 

 

I am saying Iran (and possibly Syria) under the current regime might well have things to gain by using nuclear technology in such as way - and they are clearly perfectly willing to do so on a lesser scale as Iraq shows day in, day out.

 

And that I think we may well see a nuclear terror attack "coincidentally" not that long after Iran gains the abilities.

[Park Life 71]

You're saying dinnerjacket is brighter than Bush. Nuke them I say!

 

The thing is it would be very, very difficult to get a nuclear weapon or nuclear material into the UK (impossible maybe), but get one into the English Channel, or off the coast? Much more likely.

 

 

The fact is nuclear weapons as a genuine military option are almost obsolete - no country would use them pro-actively as they are a death wish.

 

But using them in other more subvert ways is something I think we'll eventually see, much like 40 years ago islamic suicide bombers were practically unheard of.

 

 

Frankly I'd always rather have a madman or a dim extremist in charge of a country than an intelligent person with an agenda and a plan.

 

Not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying Muslim countries/ Arab countries are more likely to proliferate or use nukes? Historically of course that isn't the case.

 

India, Pakistan, Israel and South Africa all developed their nukes with the help of the U.S.A, Russia and the U.K.

 

No (although you're falling into your own trap by suggesting it).

 

 

 

 

 

I am saying Iran (and possibly Syria) under the current regime might well have things to gain by using nuclear technology in such as way - and they are clearly perfectly willing to do so on a lesser scale as Iraq shows day in, day out.

 

And that I think we may well see a nuclear terror attack "coincidentally" not that long after Iran gains the abilities.

 

 

And your evidence for this supposition is Iran supporting the Shia in Iraq? The Shia in Iraq are Iraqi's it is Iraqi's that are fighting the American occupation. I think from this it is a quantum leap to suggest (and there is no evidence for it) that Iran will give nuclear material to terrorists IMO. America set the president btw we the long and well funded support of the Taliban against Soviet occupation. The same Taliban it is trying and failing to rail in now in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

 

I have a clear line on this, ultimately it will be impossible as time goes on and geo-political alliances fracture to stop the Arabs in the middle east getting nuclear weapons. To think otherwise is a delusion. Better to get round the table with them now and law paths of dialogue and understanding and set up trip lines of communication against the ultimate mistake.

[Fop 1]

You're saying dinnerjacket is brighter than Bush. Nuke them I say!

 

The thing is it would be very, very difficult to get a nuclear weapon or nuclear material into the UK (impossible maybe), but get one into the English Channel, or off the coast? Much more likely.

 

 

The fact is nuclear weapons as a genuine military option are almost obsolete - no country would use them pro-actively as they are a death wish.

 

But using them in other more subvert ways is something I think we'll eventually see, much like 40 years ago islamic suicide bombers were practically unheard of.

 

 

Frankly I'd always rather have a madman or a dim extremist in charge of a country than an intelligent person with an agenda and a plan.

 

Should we engage with Iran or should we continue to back them into a corner?

 

 

One of the main reasons the Soviets fell is when we started offering financial and economic carrots and oking bank loans to Gorbachev iirc.

 

 

Well part of the reason the USSR fell was internal weight and Reagan's policy of out doing them..... although it has to be said the difference between the end of the USSR and the current Russia is mostly in the branding - as any British interest in Russia is currently very well aware of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as Iran is concerned it is a very difficult path, not least because it's like playing chess against a grandmaster (as opposed to Bush that would simply get someone to knock the board over if he started losing), they WILL out play you at your own game if you aren't careful.... and maybe if you are careful.

 

I think they should be frustrated with nuclear development by almost any means necessary (maybe any means necessary), but equally should be engaged as much as possible in all other ways.

 

 

 

One major point is that there's not much to bargain with in Iran (unlike say N Korea or Libya where you can use financial aid as a carrot) then only really need what they want.... nuclear weapons.

 

It's pretty much impossible to bargain when they are in a position of such strength.

[Fop 1]

I have a clear line on this, ultimately it will be impossible as time goes on and geo-political alliances fracture to stop the Arabs in the middle east getting nuclear weapons. To think otherwise is a delusion. Better to get round the table with them now and law paths of dialogue and understanding and set up trip lines of communication against the ultimate mistake.

Probably, but the issue with Iran (and Syria to a degree) is that it is NOT like helping Turkey with a nuclear program (and Turkey still has plenty of problems), it's more like helping nazi germany with a nuclear program. Appeasement doesn't work, and there is nothing Iran needs but what it wants, it can never be a two way street with the regiem in power....... and there will never be a better regiem in power if all more liberal candidates are stopped from even standing for election YET AGAIN.

 

 

It is massively naive to think that only the USA or the West is meddling in the area to reasons of their own advantage, look at Lebanon, that has as much to do with Islamic Imperialism as Isreal and the West.

 

 

 

And your evidence for this supposition is Iran supporting the Shia in Iraq? The Shia in Iraq are Iraqi's it is Iraqi's that are fighting the American occupation. I think from this it is a quantum leap to suggest (and there is no evidence for it) that Iran will give nuclear material to terrorists IMO. America set the president btw we the long and well funded support of the Taliban against Soviet occupation. The same Taliban it is trying and failing to rail in now in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

Iran has been "supporting" shia (who aren't actually very friendly with Iran despite both largely being shia), and Sunni and foreign fighters (basically everyone in what is in fact a 3-4 way civil war).

 

Their objective there is NOT for any side to "win", but to concentrate and prolong the carnage for as long as they possibly can.

 

 

 

Both for regional and domestic political gain, and for gain on the wider international stage and to rather cleverly weaken their biggest enemies with a form of political and military engagement that costs them nothing and gains them much. Like I said - masterful.

[Park Life 71]

I have a clear line on this, ultimately it will be impossible as time goes on and geo-political alliances fracture to stop the Arabs in the middle east getting nuclear weapons. To think otherwise is a delusion. Better to get round the table with them now and law paths of dialogue and understanding and set up trip lines of communication against the ultimate mistake.

Probably, but the issue with Iran (and Syria to a degree) is that it is NOT like helping Turkey with a nuclear program (and Turkey still has plenty of problems), it's more like helping nazi germany with a nuclear program. Appeasement doesn't work, and there is nothing Iran needs but what it wants, it can never be a two way street with the regiem in power....... and there will never be a better regiem in power if all more liberal candidates are stopped from even standing for election YET AGAIN.

 

 

It is massively naive to think that only the USA or the West is meddling in the area to reasons of their own advantage, look at Lebanon, that has as much to do with Islamic Imperialism as Isreal and the West.

 

 

 

And your evidence for this supposition is Iran supporting the Shia in Iraq? The Shia in Iraq are Iraqi's it is Iraqi's that are fighting the American occupation. I think from this it is a quantum leap to suggest (and there is no evidence for it) that Iran will give nuclear material to terrorists IMO. America set the president btw we the long and well funded support of the Taliban against Soviet occupation. The same Taliban it is trying and failing to rail in now in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

Iran has been "supporting" shia (who aren't actually very friendly with Iran despite both largely being shia), and Sunni and foreign fighters (basically everyone in what is in fact a 3-4 way civil war).

 

Their objective there is NOT for any side to "win", but to concentrate and prolong the carnage for as long as they possibly can.

 

 

 

Both for regional and domestic political gain, and for gain on the wider international stage and to rather cleverly weaken their biggest enemies with a form of political and military engagement that costs them nothing and gains them much. Like I said - masterful.

 

I don't think it is as masterful as you say, but am in general agreement about your view of the strategy. It's logical that they would want to tie down the Americans in Iraq as long as possible. I emphasise yet again, the resistance (no matter how the media spin it) is predominantly local Iraqi's of whatever religion. Of course the invasion has amplified many unfortunate vectors for the West and us in general, there is no denying that. I would love we have a government that one day could de-link on some issues from America, but if Oba wins this might not even be necessary. An America without a renegade leadership does and should continue to play a major role in delivering stability, at the moment nearly everything they do is leading to the opposite. I wonder if one day soon we might see their very own version of the 'enemy within' card....Gosh they've tried almost everything else.

I still feel the pieces of the puzzle haven't fallen so far from the table that some kind of friendly/peaceful picture might yet be possible.

 

 

Edit: I notice Bush was freaked recently when Brown started making noises about a pullout timetable. I personally think we've done all we can there and need to get our soldiers out of harms way in which is increasingly looking like an armed to the teeth civil war.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

The Iranians aren't Arabs btw

[Park Life 71]

The Iranians aren't Arabs btw

 

Good point. Infact they aren't that keen on many Arabs.

[Guest alex]

The Iranians aren't Arabs btw

 

Good point. Infact they aren't that keen on many Arabs.

Cuts both ways. Someone told me they had a war once. They also said Saddam was the good guy back then though so I doubt if it's true.

[Fop 1]

The Iranians aren't Arabs btw

 

Good point. Infact they aren't that keen on many Arabs.

Cuts both ways. Someone told me they had a war once. They also said Saddam was the good guy back then though so I doubt if it's true.

 

Yup, it's yet another good reason for them to keep Iraq as weak and divided as possible (both as a direct neighbour and because it keeps Iran's influence higher in a wider area) - which is something I always find strange. People are quite willing to blame the USA for everything and anything, yet are unwilling to accept that other countries will happily play the self interest game as well.

[Park Life 71]

No kind of surgical or other strike against Iran by Israel will stop there, it will result in a mammoth blood bath. I also can't see Israel even with their huge technological edge holding back swathes of Iraninans for long without the use of chemical or tactical nukes. I wish certain types in the Whitehouse and hawks in the Israeli leadership would stop pretending this is a sensible option.

[Park Life 71]

The Iranians aren't Arabs btw

 

Good point. Infact they aren't that keen on many Arabs.

Cuts both ways. Someone told me they had a war once. They also said Saddam was the good guy back then though so I doubt if it's true.

 

Yup, it's yet another good reason for them to keep Iraq as weak and divided as possible (both as a direct neighbour and because it keeps Iran's influence higher in a wider area) - which is something I always find strange. People are quite willing to blame the USA for everything and anything, yet are unwilling to accept that other countries will happily play the self interest game as well.

 

ALL countries play the self-interest game, that isn't even a debate.

[Fop 1]

I don't think it is as masterful as you say, but am in general agreement about your view of the strategy. It's logical that they would want to tie down the Americans in Iraq as long as possible. I emphasise yet again, the resistance (no matter how the media spin it) is predominantly local Iraqi's of whatever religion. Of course the invasion has amplified many unfortunate vectors for the West and us in general, there is no denying that. I would love we have a government that one day could de-link on some issues from America, but if Oba wins this might not even be necessary. An America without a renegade leadership does and should continue to play a major role in delivering stability, at the moment nearly everything they do is leading to the opposite. I wonder if one day soon we might see their very own version of the 'enemy within' card....Gosh they've tried almost everything else.

I still feel the pieces of the puzzle haven't fallen so far from the table that some kind of friendly/peaceful picture might yet be possible.

 

 

Edit: I notice Bush was freaked recently when Brown started making noises about a pullout timetable. I personally think we've done all we can there and need to get our soldiers out of harms way in which is increasingly looking like an armed to the teeth civil war.

 

They played the hand that was dealt them as best they could, not only against the USA, but rivals in the area (directly, as Iraq would be, and indirectly as an Islamic country that "stands up" to the West - which is what seizing British troop has always been about)..... it's actually pretty similar to the way the old Persian Empire was once ruled.

 

But Iraq was always a civil war waiting to happen, in fact it was simply a civil war that Saddam kept won with brutal tactics for 30 years.

 

However without money, arms and explosives and other technology the carnage in Iraq could never have have reached or sustained the levels it has.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But again I see nothing in the way Iran are happy to meddle in mass death and destruction in Iraq (and Lebanon and Palestine to a lesser degree - yes the USA and West is guilt of this too, but it takes two (or more) sides to have a fight and pity the poor bastards sat in the middle) to suggest Iran wouldn't use nuclear weapons in a similar way to which they've used conventional weapons to further their own cause - no matter the death and suffering to other.

 

Like I said if Iran get a nuclear capability, we'll see terror attack not long afterwards (unless something dramatic changes in the Iranian regime - which as I said given how they rig their "democracy" I can't see happening).

[Fop 1]

No kind of surgical or other strike against Iran by Israel will stop there, it will result in a mammoth blood bath. I also can't see Israel even with their huge technological edge holding back swathes of Iraninans for long without the use of chemical or tactical nukes. I wish certain types in the Whitehouse and hawks in the Israeli leadership would stop pretending this is a sensible option.

 

 

Nah, it'll be just like the Syrian strike, only Iran will do much, much more with the PR spin from it.

[Fop 1]

ALL countries play the self-interest game, that isn't even a debate.

 

Yup, which is why they'll never be convinced to not develop nuclear weapons with any carrot or indeed to not give them to their official allies, or use them in more covert ways (well covert in supply if not effect), when they do.

[Guest alex]

No kind of surgical or other strike against Iran by Israel will stop there, it will result in a mammoth blood bath. I also can't see Israel even with their huge technological edge holding back swathes of Iraninans for long without the use of chemical or tactical nukes. I wish certain types in the Whitehouse and hawks in the Israeli leadership would stop pretending this is a sensible option.

 

 

Nah, it'll be just like the Syrian strike, only Iran will do much, much more with the PR spin from it.

Probably, I can't really see them invading. They know they'll be obliterated. And whatever may be gained or may happen in the long run, the current rulers would almost certainly lose the one thing they hold most dear - their positions of power.

[Fop 1]

No kind of surgical or other strike against Iran by Israel will stop there, it will result in a mammoth blood bath. I also can't see Israel even with their huge technological edge holding back swathes of Iraninans for long without the use of chemical or tactical nukes. I wish certain types in the Whitehouse and hawks in the Israeli leadership would stop pretending this is a sensible option.

 

 

Nah, it'll be just like the Syrian strike, only Iran will do much, much more with the PR spin from it.

Probably, I can't really see them invading. They know they'll be obliterated. And whatever may be gained or may happen in the long run, the current rulers would almost certainly lose the one thing they hold most dear - their positions of power.

 

Aye militarily they are much stronger than Iraq was in 2003, and probably 1990, but that's defensively, offensively is a different thing.

 

Plus look at the distances involved, it's not like Germany invading Poland, it's more like Germany invading the USSR.

[Fop 1]

On the other hand it might be more worrying if The Muppets were planing Armageddon.

 

[Park Life 71]

[Guest alex]

No kind of surgical or other strike against Iran by Israel will stop there, it will result in a mammoth blood bath. I also can't see Israel even with their huge technological edge holding back swathes of Iraninans for long without the use of chemical or tactical nukes. I wish certain types in the Whitehouse and hawks in the Israeli leadership would stop pretending this is a sensible option.

 

 

Nah, it'll be just like the Syrian strike, only Iran will do much, much more with the PR spin from it.

Probably, I can't really see them invading. They know they'll be obliterated. And whatever may be gained or may happen in the long run, the current rulers would almost certainly lose the one thing they hold most dear - their positions of power.

 

Aye militarily they are much stronger than Iraq was in 2003, and probably 1990, but that's defensively, offensively is a different thing.

 

Plus look at the distances involved, it's not like Germany invading Poland, it's more like Germany invading the USSR.

It's a dangerous game the Israelis and US are playing though if they do go ahead with the strikes and the worst (and unlikely) should happen and Iran retaliate. Because defeating Iran militarily would (going by Iraq and Afghanistan for example) would only be the start of things. And no doubt we would get involved and become even more overstretched and even more vulnerable to reprisals. It's difficult to say what should be done for the best though because just letting Iran develop nuclear weapons is the greater evil for me.

[Fop 1]

No kind of surgical or other strike against Iran by Israel will stop there, it will result in a mammoth blood bath. I also can't see Israel even with their huge technological edge holding back swathes of Iraninans for long without the use of chemical or tactical nukes. I wish certain types in the Whitehouse and hawks in the Israeli leadership would stop pretending this is a sensible option.

 

 

Nah, it'll be just like the Syrian strike, only Iran will do much, much more with the PR spin from it.

Probably, I can't really see them invading. They know they'll be obliterated. And whatever may be gained or may happen in the long run, the current rulers would almost certainly lose the one thing they hold most dear - their positions of power.

 

Aye militarily they are much stronger than Iraq was in 2003, and probably 1990, but that's defensively, offensively is a different thing.

 

Plus look at the distances involved, it's not like Germany invading Poland, it's more like Germany invading the USSR.

It's a dangerous game the Israelis and US are playing though if they do go ahead with the strikes and the worst (and unlikely) should happen and Iran retaliate. Because defeating Iran militarily would (going by Iraq and Afghanistan for example) would only be the start of things. And no doubt we would get involved and become even more overstretched and even more vulnerable to reprisals. It's difficult to say what should be done for the best though because just letting Iran develop nuclear weapons is the greater evil for me.

Yeah, I think at one stage Bush was actually genuinely considering the possibility of Iran and direct military action, but Afghanistan and Iraq have pretty much stopped that.

 

The whole thing is a complete minefield, as I think Iran currently are all things considered probably the worst country in world to "allow" to develop nuclear weapons (that are capable of it), but there's no really good way to go about achieving the goal of them not getting that capability. Almost whatever action is taken or not taken....... Iran wins.

 

It's a situation like Afghanistan, where the USA had little option of allowing the Taliban to stay in power after 9/11, yet the problems and commitments there will likely still be on going long after Iraq sorts itself out.

[Park Life 71]

No kind of surgical or other strike against Iran by Israel will stop there, it will result in a mammoth blood bath. I also can't see Israel even with their huge technological edge holding back swathes of Iraninans for long without the use of chemical or tactical nukes. I wish certain types in the Whitehouse and hawks in the Israeli leadership would stop pretending this is a sensible option.

 

 

Nah, it'll be just like the Syrian strike, only Iran will do much, much more with the PR spin from it.

Probably, I can't really see them invading. They know they'll be obliterated. And whatever may be gained or may happen in the long run, the current rulers would almost certainly lose the one thing they hold most dear - their positions of power.

 

Aye militarily they are much stronger than Iraq was in 2003, and probably 1990, but that's defensively, offensively is a different thing.

 

Plus look at the distances involved, it's not like Germany invading Poland, it's more like Germany invading the USSR.

It's a dangerous game the Israelis and US are playing though if they do go ahead with the strikes and the worst (and unlikely) should happen and Iran retaliate. Because defeating Iran militarily would (going by Iraq and Afghanistan for example) would only be the start of things. And no doubt we would get involved and become even more overstretched and even more vulnerable to reprisals. It's difficult to say what should be done for the best though because just letting Iran develop nuclear weapons is the greater evil for me.

 

One scenario, although for us as onlookers seems unlikely, are these the risks we are being encouraged to entertain?

 

 

"Sept 2004: Four Day War: Scenario of How War on Iran Would Go

What follows is the unfolding of a worst-case scenario, an imaginary yet all-too-possible depiction of how events might develop if Israel were to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Day One: Wednesday -- In a pre-dawn raid, undisclosed numbers of Israeli warplanes, taking off from military airbases in the Negev, destroy Iran’s main nuclear facility at Bushehr. ..During the one-hour raid, Iran claims to have shot down “several” Israeli fighters. Television images show pilots being lynched by furious mobs before Iranian authorities could reach them. The after-effects of the raid shake the Arab and Islamic world. Millions take to the streets demanding immediate action against Israel...American intelligence convinced Israel that as long as Musharraf remains in power, Pakistan does not represent an imminent threat. The decision was made not to hit Pakistan.

 

 

Day Two: Thursday - Iran retaliates. Thousands of Revolutionary Guards are dispatched across the border into Iraq with orders to inflict as many casualties on American troops as possible. Iranian sleeper agents, who have infiltrated Iraq since the downfall of Saddam, urge Iraqi Shi’ites into action. Tehran orders the Lebanese Shi’ite movement, Hezbollah, into action against northern Israel. Hezbollah launches scores of rockets and mortars against kibbutzim, towns, and settlements. Israel retaliates. Crowds of gigantic proportions take to the streets, ransacking Israeli embassies in Cairo, Amman, and Ankara. American embassies in a number of other cities are burned.

 

 

Day Three: Friday - Following Friday prayers across the Islamic world, crowds incited by fiery sermons in mosques from Casablanca to Karachi take to the streets in the worst protests yet. In Saudi Arabia, Islamist militants engage in open gun battles with security forces in several cities. In Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, and a dozen other countries, crowds continue to run amok, demanding war on Israel.

 

 

Day Four: Saturday - A longstanding plan to overthrow Musharraf is carried out by senior Pakistani army officers loyal to the Islamic fundamentalists and with close ties to bin Laden. Within hours, and before news of the coup leaks out, Pakistan, now run by pro-bin Laden fundamentalists, loads two nuclear weapons aboard executive Lear jets [that] dive into the outskirts of the two [israeli] cities, detonating their nuclear devices in the process.

The rest of this scenario can unfold in a number of ways. Take your pick; none are encouraging.

Israel retaliates against Pakistan, killing millions in the process. Arab governments fall. Following days of violence, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt succumb to Islamist rebels who vow open warfare with Israel. The Middle East regresses into war, with the fighting claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. A much-weakened Israel, now struggling for its very survival, deploys more nuclear weapons, targeting multiple Arab capitals. The Middle East is in complete mayhem, as the United States desperately tries to arrange a cease-fire."

Edited June 25, 2008 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

I'd love to see where that came from btw.

[Park Life 71]

I'd love to see where that came from btw.

 

No.

 

 

But as you say defeating Iran militarily would only be the start. I totally agree.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

I'd love to see where that came from btw.

 

No.

I can just imagine how funny the rest of that sites content is

[Fop 1]

Well that's a pretty good scenario outlining the current dangers of world wide Islamofacism, but barring the lynched Israeli pilots and the inevitable (whether there is a strike or not) rocket attacks on Israel, and the usual Arab/Islamic tabloid headlines and incitement in the area, I don't think it would really happen that way.

 

Iran aren't mad enough to think they could beat US forces in a conventional war, or stupid enough to galvanise the USA nation into an all out war against them (as Japan were, or the Taliban were for that matter).

 

Plus if there's one thing that would probably get all sides in Iraq to stop fighting each other it would be Iran invading, they would of course be too busy fighting Iran.