Is a US-led war with Iran inevitable?

[alpine_saint]

Lol at some of the replies.

 

Iran is not Iraq. Although unpopular with many, the regime came about through Iran's own Arab Spring when they over threw the "old way"

 

Now there is a strong and educated Middle Class who are not happy with the totalitarianism of the regime, but they really do not want to have a McDonalds on every street corner.

 

Iran "Hates" Saudi Arabia with a passion, they do not believe that the Wahibi's are to be trusted as Custodians of the Holy Places. This whole "thing going on with the Telly News channels" was never about an attack on AMERICA. It was about blowing up the SAUDI Ambassador....

 

Now will US have to go to war with Iran - pretty much always inevitable because one day the Gulf Staes would probably have had to do it themselves anyway. (It got lost in the Human Rights/Arab Spring thing but the trouble in Bahrain was actually (PARTLY) about this issue)

 

Will it be easy? No. Would the US be able to invade and win? No.

 

Could it go Nuke? Yes

 

Should YOU worry? Feck yes. They do not need to Nuke London to make you all die slowly. Just hit Dharran a few hundred miles away. Lights out Europe. Power Cuts for 18 hours a day in EU? Guess who wins? Ain't the US

 

At the end of the day, World War 3 started years ago, just nobody ever noticed and unfortunately if there is to ever be global peace then a more moderate Iranian regime needs to emerge from one MOFO of a mess of a 2nd revolution.

 

As a good friend from Iran once said. If only Jimmy Carter had had a brain instead of a broken down helicopter...

 

Good post.

 

Though I reckon a nuclear exchange is more likely between Iran and Israel than Iran and the US.

 

Whichever way, the worlds biggest oil fields will be f**ked and humanity will be heading back into the Dark Ages. The problem is, what to do about Iran ? Sooner or later its going to kick off with them, the longer its left the more catastrophic the result will be. The US really f**ked up letting their Islamic Revolution gain momentum in the 70s.

 

Someone quite famous said WW3 will be fought with nukes, WW4 with sticks and stones...

[alpine_saint]

So we know things are bad when 'Desperation' takes off ?

 

According to that summary, the Typhoons havent carried on with the naming, but they do have individual idents F, H, C and D...

[alpine_saint]

Can someone give me a sensible explanation as to why some country's bomb is 'illegal' but other countries' bombs aren't?

 

Obtained after the set up of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 (which isnt worth the paper its written on in reality...)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Proliferation_Treaty

 

Interestingly, India, Pakistan and Israel refused to sign, so technically they arent illegal, but Irans is because they signed. N. Korea withdrew, dont know if that makes it illegal or not.

[Wade Garrett]

Why do the yanks have to always be in a war with someone?

 

They ploughed into Iraq and left the country in arguably a worse state than it was in before, they'll pull out of Afghanistan without winning either. They must have wasted trillions of dollars on pointless wars they haven't one. Money that no doubt, could rescue their domestic economic woes. They've been doing in for years. Look at Vietnam, a completely pointless war.

 

What annoys me even more is the Government will probably find billions of pounds all of a sudden to send our own troops in. Shame this money couldn't be used to offset cuts, improve public services and kickstart private enterprise instead of being flushed down the loo.

[Rory]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means but it does seem to be falling into place (in my opinion).

 

Although an Iranian propaganda tool, Press TV (the Iranian news channel) will be deleted from Sky at the request of the Royal Family/government: http://presstv.com/detail/204207.html

 

This is a real shame as it was a compelling network. Their coverage of the Egyptian uprising earlier this year was inspirational - definitely some of the best I've ever seen.

 

I find it a strange decision as I'm sure a British equivalent of Al-Jazeera - an infamous platform for Al-Qaeda in the past - is still operational on Sky.

 

What about this for a claim? Again, it's from Press TV, but doesn't this worry you a bit? http://www.presstv.ir/detail/203872.html

 

 

Probably all rubbish, but...

[pap]

Those who are saying it's only "fair" that Iran should be allowed to build the bomb....

 

Wonder how fair you think it will be if they have it and one day you wake up and suddenly pay £3 per litre at the pump

 

They will put massive pressure on the oil producing states and we all will be screwed...

 

But hey, as long as it's fair

 

And for pap. You keep saying people are ignoring n.Korea.....is that a wind up?

 

You've hit the nail on the head with regard to what it's really all about, TDD - but I'd disagree with some of your conclusions.

 

First, the actual problem is a potential energy crisis. There are better ways to address that than raiding countries rich with natural resources. The problem is that large business doesn't want to know. They've got far too much invested in oil as a commodity, and make money off it at every stage.

 

Not a wind-up about North Korea. Just look at the situation with Iraq. There were unsubstantiated claims that Iraq had WMD, and that was enough to start a war. Yet NK can flout its miltary capability without getting invaded.

[pap]

Good post.

 

Though I reckon a nuclear exchange is more likely between Iran and Israel than Iran and the US.

 

Whichever way, the worlds biggest oil fields will be f**ked and humanity will be heading back into the Dark Ages. The problem is, what to do about Iran ? Sooner or later its going to kick off with them, the longer its left the more catastrophic the result will be. The US really f**ked up letting their Islamic Revolution gain momentum in the 70s.

 

Someone quite famous said WW3 will be fought with nukes, WW4 with sticks and stones...

 

How's about letting them get on with it and leaving them alone?

 

I don't find the nature of their regime particularly pleasing - religious fundamentalism is completely at odds with the way I like to live, but that's really besides the point. Whatever you might want to say about the regime, it hasn't actually been an international aggressor. How did they get into the "Axis of Evil" club anyway?

[dubai_phil]

How's about letting them get on with it and leaving them alone?

 

I don't find the nature of their regime particularly pleasing - religious fundamentalism is completely at odds with the way I like to live, but that's really besides the point. Whatever you might want to say about the regime, it hasn't actually been an international aggressor. How did they get into the "Axis of Evil" club anyway?

 

But that is the problem. They do not leave things alone.

 

The excuse they have is the defence of the Palestinians. Outside the country they are active in supporting the regime in Syria and in supporting elements of the Palestinians. Their support runs from arms and training through to the aid and education in the refugee camps of southern Lebanon.

 

There were more than enough comments on the Arab Spring threads linking to reports that many of the key clerics or influencers during the Bahrain uprising had links back to Iran.

 

They MEDDLE. It isn't JUST the Yanks & Israelis who do not like this, the locals get hacked off by it as well.

 

In a highly simplistic extreme world, Islam must be everything, no other religion can exist. But then you have the same problem WITHIN Islam, with (in extreme visions) the differing interpretations MUST take precedence.

 

To understand what that means try getting a 50 year old Protestant in Derry to switch to being a Catholic overnight is the best analogy.

 

So it's never JUST about annoying America. They want their version to be the way of Islam. Again, in a simplistic view They want the Holy Sites Mecca, Medina to be controlled by Shia not Wahabi. They give very undercover support to the Shia's in Iraq to "battle" the Sunni's.

 

The Israelis of course keep giving them ammunition and they keep riding in to the rescue of the poor defenceless persecuted Palestinians.

 

There IS a solution. The radical students have grown up, they have seen, like all regimes that the "Poltical Elite" that they installed now live in "luxury" and now still tell them what they can and cannot do. They and their now well educated kids with access to the internet don't LIKE it any more in the same way that you "Westerners" are getting fed up with the way Banking/Politics has screwed up the west.

 

Again, where did the Arab Spring START?

 

Which was the first country to use FB & Twitter to get people onto the streets? - Yes, IRAN

 

They took a fearful battering and in many ways because they were first they lacked some of the self belief that they inspired in later revolutions.

 

The Social Media revolution will not work again, the forces now control it too carefully, BUT as areas of Iran's influence fall as Syria must soon, the day will come when the people will find a way.

 

Iran will NEVER be Westernised, and even with a new regime the Israeli issue HAS to be solved, but it won't have such a nutter in control

[egg]

How's about letting them get on with it and leaving them alone?

 

 

Agree. I don't understand the notion that a nuclear bomb is perceived as a deterrent in the hands of some nations, but a threat in the hands of others.

 

This is all about control. If Iran develop a nuclear bomb it will deter the yanks and Israel from doing what they want, whenever they want.

 

Leave them to it and there is more prospect of peace imo. On all the evidence available every country (except the usa) have used their nuclear arsenal as a shield rather than a sword.

[alpine_saint]

How's about letting them get on with it and leaving them alone?

 

I don't find the nature of their regime particularly pleasing - religious fundamentalism is completely at odds with the way I like to live, but that's really besides the point. Whatever you might want to say about the regime, it hasn't actually been an international aggressor. How did they get into the "Axis of Evil" club anyway?

 

Are you for real ?

 

Just because they have not marched into countries behind large armoured formations does NOT mean they are not international aggressors - they are forever sh*t-stirring and interfering in the internal affairs of other nations in the region, and are universally accepted to be significant sponsors of terrorist activity. Just look at the latest accusations which have trigger the recent escalation in tension.

[alpine_saint]

Agree. I don't understand the notion that a nuclear bomb is perceived as a deterrent in the hands of some nations, but a threat in the hands of others.

 

This is all about control. If Iran develop a nuclear bomb it will deter the yanks and Israel from doing what they want, whenever they want.

 

Leave them to it and there is more prospect of peace imo. On all the evidence available every country (except the usa) have used their nuclear arsenal as a shield rather than a sword.

 

This post is a bit simplistic.

 

Iran might be able to detonate a nuke, but they are long way from being able to deliver it. So again terrorism raises its ugly head. The US would obliterate Tehran in the blink of an eye if they connected a terrorist nuclear explosion to Iran.

 

Also, this old hack about "the US is the only country to have used a nuke" is totally irrelevant - it was a totally different time and none of the humanitarian, psychological and social impacts were fully understood

[egg]

Are you for real ?

 

Just because they have not marched into countries behind large armoured formations does NOT mean they are not international aggressors - they are forever sh*t-stirring and interfering in the internal affairs of other nations in the region, and are universally accepted to be significant sponsors of terrorist activity. Just look at the latest accusations which have trigger the recent escalation in tension.

 

 

I was partially with you until I got to the word "accusations".

 

The main tension in the middle east is Israel / Palestine.

 

Nobody will ever convince me that the real aggresors in that region are not the usa sponsored Israelis. Lets not forget the wests little act if aggression in Iraq either.

[farawaysaint]

This post is a bit simplistic.

 

Iran might be able to detonate a nuke, but they are long way from being able to deliver it. So again terrorism raises its ugly head. The US would obliterate Tehran in the blink of an eye if they connected a terrorist nuclear explosion to Iran.

 

Also, this old hack about "the US is the only country to have used a nuke" is totally irrelevant - it was a totally different time and none of the humanitarian, psychological and social impacts were fully understood

 

The true impact of the bomb was never understood, they didn't realise even after the tests just how devestating they were nor did they understand the harmful long term effects on health. (I believe a large number of participants in the Manhattan project died of radiation related illnesses years later.) To say Iran are a long way off from being able to deliver a Nuke though is way off. It's a a simple matter to modify one of their existing missile systems to deliver the payload. There isn't a chance in hell they could strike America or the UK though but their immediate neighbours would be under threat. Still I think it's a bit hypocritical for Biden to get all preachy about how assassination is such a serious crime a few weeks after America assassinates someone in Yemen

[egg]

This post is a bit simplistic.

 

Iran might be able to detonate a nuke, but they are long way from being able to deliver it. So again terrorism raises its ugly head. The US would obliterate Tehran in the blink of an eye if they connected a terrorist nuclear explosion to Iran.

 

Also, this old hack about "the US is the only country to have used a nuke" is totally irrelevant - it was a totally different time and none of the humanitarian, psychological and social impacts were fully understood

 

With respect, what is simplistic (and silly) is to assume that Iran may use a nuclear weapon if they had one. The only act of an aggressive use of a weapon is by the usa over 50 yeras ago. Since then many countries have owned them but not used them. They haven't because others have had them and fear of reprisal. Simply, possession of the things creates a deterrant.

[alpine_saint]

I was partially with you until I got to the word "accusations".

 

The main tension in the middle east is Israel / Palestine.

 

Nobody will ever convince me that the real aggresors in that region are not the usa sponsored Israelis. Lets not forget the wests little act if aggression in Iraq either.

 

Yep, you've hit the nub of the problem.

 

Israel is the only democracy in the region, and is safe-haven from the worst example of ethnic cleansing and mass extermination that the world has ever known. They are surrounded by several nations who would love nothing better than wiping their nation and their people off the map. And its being going on since the times of the Pharoahs. The US was badly affected by the Holocaust, and have sworn to prevent a repeat.

 

I fully understand Israels paranoia and occasional over-reaction to incidents.

 

Look at the issue of the release of Shalit. Israel values their people so much, they will release 1000 prisoners to secure the freedom of their son. Would the Palestinians do the same ? I doubt it.

Edited 13 October, 2011 by alpine_saint

[alpine_saint]

With respect, what is simplistic (and silly) is to assume that Iran may use a nuclear weapon if they had one. The only act of an aggressive use of a weapon is by the usa over 50 yeras ago. Since then many countries have owned them but not used them. They haven't because others have had them and fear of reprisal. Simply, possession of the things creates a deterrant.

 

Who is more likely to use a nuke - Obama or Ahmedinejad ? Hmmmm, let me think about that one....

[saintwarwick]

Yep, you've hit the nub of the problem.

 

Israel is the only democracy in the region, and is safe-haven from the worst example of ethnic cleansing and mass extermination that the world has ever known. They are surrounded by several nations who would love nothing better than wiping their nation and their people off the map. And its being going on since the times of the Pharoahs. The US was badly affected by the Holocaust, and have sworn to prevent a repeat.

 

I fully understand Israels paranoia and occasional over-reaction to incidents.

 

Look at the issue of the release of Shalit. Israel values their people so much, they will release 1000 prisoners to secure the freedom of their son. Would the Palestinians do the same ? I doubt it.

 

Excellent post and well said, Israel are surrounded by countries who would rather they did not exist to the point they (Israel) now compete for the euro footy finals and world cup qualifying in Europe and enter the eurovision song contest!!!

[saintwarwick]

Nope, but that's not an argument.

 

No-one uses nuclear weapons because the response would be devastating to their country. So why do you think Iran would be more likely to use them?

 

Who would you trust between the two?

[doddisalegend]

Is it inevitable? I don't know. I hope not, we are not in a fit state to enter into yet another conflict. Only last week I heard on the news that the Falklands are being eyed up by the Argentinians still, and should there be a conflict, our prospects would not be all that good. We barely won last time, to my knowledge.

 

Argentina couldn't invade squat. The current goverment is to afraid of the armed forces, and given their history who could blame them, so they keep military budgets small and the army under resoruced. Argentina's armed forces are in a worse state than the last war (so are ours) but the Falklands has a much bigger military prescence than the last war like typhoons.

 

The FDF is much better this time to they actually have modern weapons like Austrain Steyrs rather than ww2 vintage SMLE like last time.

[egg]

Alpine, we have differing views that I would love to debate but work calls. Isreal is a hideous state. It's seizure of foreign land and building of settlements is unacceptable. Whilst universally criticised its' actions have gone unenforced. Despite this (and the constant helicopter attacks on gaza and the west bank) Israel recives funding and support from the Usa whilst other countries face sanctions. Easy to see why the Palestinian supporters feel a little upset.

 

As to who is more likely to use a nuke, I think the reality is neither. The last 50+ years give us the best evidence of that. If a bad regime in control of a nuclear weapon meant that a nuclear strike would occur then the North Koreans, Pakistani's, and dare I say it, Israeli's would surely have used them by now.

[pap]

Are you for real ?

 

Just because they have not marched into countries behind large armoured formations does NOT mean they are not international aggressors - they are forever sh*t-stirring and interfering in the internal affairs of other nations in the region, and are universally accepted to be significant sponsors of terrorist activity. Just look at the latest accusations which have trigger the recent escalation in tension.

 

Yep, I'm for real. So Iran stirs sh*t. How is that any different from what Western intelligence agencies do?

 

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

[pap]

Who would you trust between the two?

 

I don't trust either nation, but Israel has got more form for aggression.

[pap]

Yep, you've hit the nub of the problem.

 

Israel is the only democracy in the region, and is safe-haven from the worst example of ethnic cleansing and mass extermination that the world has ever known. They are surrounded by several nations who would love nothing better than wiping their nation and their people off the map. And its being going on since the times of the Pharoahs. The US was badly affected by the Holocaust, and have sworn to prevent a repeat.

 

I fully understand Israels paranoia and occasional over-reaction to incidents.

 

Look at the issue of the release of Shalit. Israel values their people so much, they will release 1000 prisoners to secure the freedom of their son. Would the Palestinians do the same ? I doubt it.

 

And they also spend their time shooting Arabs, assassinating people in foreign countries, effectively practising apartheid, building settlements where they are not supposed to and generally causing a huge amount of shyte and tension that'll end up dragging us all into war.

 

Most sensible people rightfully acknowledge the horrors that Jews went through in the Second World War. That does not give Israel carte-blanche to do whatever it likes forever.

[saintwarwick]

I don't trust either nation, but Israel has got more form for aggression.

 

Nothing to do with the fact no-one around them particulary likes them and as alps pointed out would rather they were wiped of the face of the earth but of course they are not allowed to defend themselves are they

[doddisalegend]

Alpine, we have differing views that I would love to debate but work calls. Isreal is a hideous state. It's seizure of foreign land and building of settlements is unacceptable. Whilst universally criticised its' actions have gone unenforced. Despite this (and the constant helicopter attacks on gaza and the west bank) Israel recives funding and support from the Usa whilst other countries face sanctions. Easy to see why the Palestinian supporters feel a little upset.

 

As to who is more likely to use a nuke, I think the reality is neither. The last 50+ years give us the best evidence of that. If a bad regime in control of a nuclear weapon meant that a nuclear strike would occur then the North Koreans, Pakistani's, and dare I say it, Israeli's would surely have used them by now.

 

I often wondered how the middle east would have turnned out if we hand't left the arabs to stand up to israel on their own? Take away Israel and you remove the main reason for islamic terroists.

 

If any country should have given up land to form a Jewish homeland after WW2 it should have been Germany not some Arabs who were barely involved in WW2.

 

I always find the Israeli justification for the treatment of palestinains as defending themselves against terroists slighty ironic given they're past history.......

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

[alpine_saint]

I often wondered how the middle east would have turnned out if we hand't left the arabs to stand up to israel on their own? Take away Israel and you remove the main reason for islamic terroists.

 

If any country should have given up land to form a Jewish homeland after WW2 it should have been Germany not some Arabs who were barely involved in WW2.

 

I always find the Israeli justification for the treatment of palestinains as defending themselves against terroists slighty ironic given they're past history.......

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

 

Absolute rot.

 

The Jews have as much claim to that land as their home as the Palestinians

[saintwarwick]

And they also spend their time shooting Arabs, assassinating people in foreign countries, effectively practising apartheid, building settlements where they are not supposed to and generally causing a huge amount of shyte and tension that'll end up dragging us all into war.

 

Most sensible people rightfully acknowledge the horrors that Jews went through in the Second World War. That does not give Israel carte-blanche to do whatever it likes forever.

 

If you think it's Israel that will start this scenario then you really are blind to the facts, of course no other country that hate and will do anything to rid Israel of the face of the earth or any terrorist group would never have any influence in any possible war would they

[pap]

Nothing to do with the fact no-one around them particulary likes them and as alps pointed out would rather they were wiped of the face of the earth but of course they are not allowed to defend themselves are they

 

First of all, the quote "wipe Israel of the face of the Earth" gained a considerable amount in the translation from Farsi to English. The actual quote, from scripture, is that "Israel will disappear from the page of history". Not quite the same thing, is it?

 

And of course Israel should be able to defend themselves. The problem is that their responses are completely disproportionate.

[alpine_saint]

As to who is more likely to use a nuke, I think the reality is neither. The last 50+ years give us the best evidence of that. If a bad regime in control of a nuclear weapon meant that a nuclear strike would occur then the North Koreans, Pakistani's, and dare I say it, Israeli's would surely have used them by now.

 

Sorry, this makes no sense.

 

N. Korea dont have a reliable working warhead yet (we think)

 

Pakistan has the massive MAD-threat of India to think about (strange you never mentioned India in your example)

 

As for Israel, there is anecdotal evidnece that they came close to deploying a nuclear bomb against Syria during the Six Days war.

[pap]

Absolute rot.

 

The Jews have as much claim to that land as their home as the Palestinians

 

By that logic, all the Celts that used to live in Britain before being pushed westward by invading forces have just as much right to Britain as we do.

[egg]

Sorry, this makes no sense.

 

N. Korea dont have a reliable working warhead yet (we think)

 

Pakistan has the massive MAD-threat of India to think about (strange you never mentioned India in your example)

 

As for Israel, there is anecdotal evidnece that they came close to deploying a nuclear bomb against Syria during the Six Days war.

 

Would South Korea go on the offensive with North Korea in the hope that their warhead is a bit iffy? No - the deterrant does it's job. Either way, your point (at least I think it's your point) that if it wasn't iffy then it may well have been used is groundless.

 

Pakistan is perceived as a loose supporter of terrorism. India is not thus I did not mention them. However, the fact that they have a weapon is likely to deter Pakistan from using theirs.

 

Israel may well have intended to use theirs, and may do. They could without fear of reprisal as their immediate neighbours do not have similar. If Iran did have similar then Israel are less likely to use theirs.

 

How many nukes did the yanks and the ussr fire at each other?

[egg]

Absolute rot.

 

The Jews have as much claim to that land as their home as the Palestinians

 

Do they have a right to the occupied territories in West bank and Golan? Do they have a right to erect settlements? The UN seem to think not...

[alpine_saint]

Do they have a right to the occupied territories in West bank and Golan? Do they have a right to erect settlements? The UN seem to think not...

 

I couldnt give a sh*t about what the UN think here. That forum is also full of Palestinian apologists.

 

Israel have occupied the West Bank, and Golan Heights for the same reason as they occuped N. Lebanon - to stop the PLO and other little sh*t organisations using those territories to fire missiles into residential areas of Israeli towns, since the sovereign state in each case was unwilling or unable to do anything to stop it.

[alpine_saint]

Would South Korea go on the offensive with North Korea in the hope that their warhead is a bit iffy? No - the deterrant does it's job. Either way, your point (at least I think it's your point) that if it wasn't iffy then it may well have been used is groundless.

 

 

Hillarious. What a bizarre example. The entire history of the 38th parallel has been of Northern belligerence to the South.

[egg]

I couldnt give a sh*t about what the UN think here. That forum is also full of Palestinian apologists.

 

Israel have occupied the West Bank, and Golan Heights for the same reason as they occuped N. Lebanon - to stop the PLO and other little sh*t organisations using those territories to fire missiles into residential areas of Israeli towns, since the sovereign state in each case was unwilling or unable to do anything to stop it.

 

 

That's ******. If they have occupied for the reasons you say then why build settlements, and continue to do so whilst driving Palestinians from their homes?

[alpine_saint]

That's ******. If they have occupied for the reasons you say then why build settlements, and continue to do so whilst driving Palestinians from their homes?

 

How can you successfully occupy an area without providing accommodation and services to the occupants ?

 

Israel knows that if they vacate the Occupied Territories, 5mins later the rockets will start landing on their towns again, just like they did when they tried to withdraw from N. Lebanon.

 

Israel is dug in for the duration, might as well make it habitable.

[dubai_phil]

I couldnt give a sh*t about what the UN think here. That forum is also full of Palestinian apologists.

 

Israel have occupied the West Bank, and Golan Heights for the same reason as they occuped N. Lebanon - to stop the PLO and other little sh*t organisations using those territories to fire missiles into residential areas of Israeli towns, since the sovereign state in each case was unwilling or unable to do anything to stop it.

 

And there we have it.

 

Who gives the "Palestinian factions" the weapons? They sure don't make them in their villas.

 

And who gives them the meaning reasons and discrimination to continue their armed struggle?

 

Who are ACTUALLY now the most vociferous factions within Israel for the need to expand settlements

 

The entire mess is intractible in the same way that Northern Ireland was during the 70's. There IS no right opnion here, there are only people dying. Currently the choice in Israel is status quo (hell even they are nearly dead) or all out war/genocide. NOBODY has been able to come up with the middle ground.

 

Israel needs more space because of the flood of post Soviet era Eastern European & Russian Jews, they are vocal and impacted Israeli politics.

 

So, the status quo will remain, people's opnions on the right to each group remain polarised and outside influences continue to enjoy their games.

 

Something has to give - Iran is a far more developed nation than it is given credit for and it's people are far more than a bunch of nutters. The Americans cannot stop their support - no President could EVER get elected (or probably even live very long) if he pulled out of support for Israel, Tony Blair was as much use as a fart in a Jacuzzi, which leaves Iran & Syria at the moment. Syria is close to tipping point regionally but in the capital life goes on and that could fester for years. The West cannot INVADE Iran - it is simply too big, and they cannot Bomb it because that will be the end of Big Oil (A dirty bomb into Dharran sees to that, wouldn't need a Nuke)

 

Take the weapons away from one side or the other, then they will talk and MAYBE, some wise man can find that middle ground for a solution. But Tony?? lol

[egg]

How can you successfully occupy an area without providing accommodation and services to the occupants ?

 

Israel knows that if they vacate the Occupied Territories, 5mins later the rockets will start landing on their towns again, just like they did when they tried to withdraw from N. Lebanon.

 

Israel is dug in for the duration, might as well make it habitable.

 

If they occupy for military purposes then they build solely for that reason. No need to build towns!

 

We are in Afghanistan. Those nasty insurgents keep shooting at our boys. Should we build nice little towns nearby and move a load of Brit's in? By your thinking that should be acceptable.

[Marsdinho]

So the ones we bully, ie terrorists like al qaeda can carry out their atrocities against the hated west without fear of reprisals then, I'm so glad you are not in power.

 

Chicken and egg springs to mind. Why do you think Al-Qaeda and terrorists hate America (the west).

[pap]

Chicken and egg springs to mind. Why do you think Al-Qaeda and terrorists hate America (the west).

 

It's because they're "evil". George W Bush even put them into the "Axis of Evil", so it must be true.

 

But really, that's the real question. The answer, US-supported Israeli aggression in the region, is not something that most people want to hear.

[egg]

Hillarious. What a bizarre example. The entire history of the 38th parallel has been of Northern belligerence to the South.

 

Ok, badly put. Nobody would invade N Korea as they have nukes.

[saintwarwick]

First of all, the quote "wipe Israel of the face of the Earth" gained a considerable amount in the translation from Farsi to English. The actual quote, from scripture, is that "Israel will disappear from the page of history". Not quite the same thing, is it?

 

And of course Israel should be able to defend themselves. The problem is that their responses are completely disproportionate.

 

Were they disproportionate during the first gulf war (1989) when Iraq saw fit to fire over 40 scud missiles at Israel without retaliation?

[Ken Tone]

 

No-one uses nuclear weapons because the response would be devastating to their country. So why do you think Iran would be more likely to use them?

 

Rationally of course that's right. The concern with somewhere like Iran is that rationality goes out of the window when religious fanatacism comes in. If you really believe that if you die in a holy war you will go to heaven, why would you care about retaliation for a nuclear strike?

 

The 'rules' that have made the nuclear deterrent remain a deterrent and not a used weapon for the last 50 years or so, do not apply to Al Quaeda etc.

[saintwarwick]

It's because they're "evil". George W Bush even put them into the "Axis of Evil", so it must be true.

 

But really, that's the real question. The answer, US-supported Israeli aggression in the region, is not something that most people want to hear.

 

Who are these most people, the few that don't recognise Israel?

[pap]

Were they disproportionate during the first gulf war (1989) when Iraq saw fit to fire over 40 scud missiles at Israel without retaliation?

 

So the exception proves the rule, does it?

 

Continue the strategy of cherry-picking individual events to distort the overall picture, though. It's extremely impressive, and I'm sure hundreds are flocking to your point of view because of it.

[dubai_phil]

Back on topic, an excellent article on the wider implications

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8822785/Hostility-between-Iran-and-Saudi-Arabia-is-going-to-get-worse.html

[pap]

Rationally of course that's right. The concern with somewhere like Iran is that rationality goes out of the window when religious fanatacism comes in. If you really believe that if you die in a holy war you will go to heaven, why would you care about retaliation for a nuclear strike?

 

The 'rules' that have made the nuclear deterrent remain a deterrent and not a used weapon for the last 50 years or so, do not apply to Al Quaeda etc.

 

Sorry, but I don't buy that the Iran's religious fundamentalism is enough for them to effectively commit self-genocide, particularly when the country has so much going for it ( see previous posts about sitting on large amounts of liquid or gaseous gold ).

[pap]

Back on topic, an excellent article on the wider implications

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8822785/Hostility-between-Iran-and-Saudi-Arabia-is-going-to-get-worse.html

 

Good read that, Phil.

 

Basically backs up a lot of what we've both said; you rightly brought Saudi front and centre. I've made points that we, or our allies, have been doing exactly the same things that Iran has been doing.

[pap]

Who are these most people, the few that don't recognise Israel?

 

No, the people who don't want to hear that Israel constitutes one of the largest problems in the region are those that would slavishly defend that state's behaviour.

[doddisalegend]

Absolute rot.

 

The Jews have as much claim to that land as their home as the Palestinians

 

Really? becuase your ansectors were living somewhere pre new testament it count's as yours does it? in that case there's alot of cultures/countries with claims to a lot of the world.

 

New zealand for the Maoris only? Should Denmark have a claim on Normandy in france? Norway on Ireland. Apparently early British beaker people came from Spain should we give southern England back to the Spanish? Of course we should give the Falklands back to Argentina shouldn't we? Our Anglo saxon forefathers came from Germany shall we add that to the Uk?

 

The Jewish population of the world had no right to a homeland built out of Palestine Just becuase a jewish kingdom exsisted there in the 6th century BC.