Is a US-led war with Iran inevitable?

[alpine_saint]

I see today that "Peaceful" Iran, "Misunderstood" Iran, "Not hurting a fly" Iran, "Not building nukes" Iran, "Not threatening anyone" Iran has advised there will be consequences if any other Gulf state boosts its oil production to compensate for loss of supply due to sanctions against it....

[dubai_phil]

That would be the same Iran that stood by and broke all rules of Diplomacy by allowing the British Embassy to be ransacked?

 

Obviously by aggrieved Citizens who were carrying out a legitimate protest.

 

 

 

 

Go try that with an Embassy in Europe

[pap]

I see today that someone is trying to re-ignite this thread after not reading much of what came before.

 

Trip trap.

[alpine_saint]

I see today that someone is trying to re-ignite this thread after not reading much of what came before.

 

Trip trap.

 

Yes, I am sure the truth hurts a little...

[Window Cleaner]

Looks like the Iranians could do with a bit of rough and tumble to occupy their time, they've just launched a crack down on Barbie type dolls which are of course illegal there. Wonder what will happen to little girls who illicitly detain the odd Barbie or Ken,perhaps they'll just stone the Barbies.

[JackFrost]

I see today that "Peaceful" Iran, "Misunderstood" Iran, "Not hurting a fly" Iran, "Not building nukes" Iran, "Not threatening anyone" Iran has advised there will be consequences if any other Gulf state boosts its oil production to compensate for loss of supply due to sanctions against it....

 

And you're quoting who there?

[alpine_saint]

And you're quoting who there?

 

Its all there over the past 400 posts, in glorious Technicolor......

[Saintandy666]

I see today that "Peaceful" Iran, "Misunderstood" Iran, "Not hurting a fly" Iran, "Not building nukes" Iran, "Not threatening anyone" Iran has advised there will be consequences if any other Gulf state boosts its oil production to compensate for loss of supply due to sanctions against it....

 

I don't like Iran's regime as much as the next person, I think that they are dangerous to the stability of the area as well as being extremely archaic in their social views.

 

But I really do not get your link... this rhetoric(and that's what it is) does not mean Iran is building nukes(which they probably are by the sounds of it), but this isn't evidence of it.

[alpine_saint]

I don't like Iran's regime as much as the next person, I think that they are dangerous to the stability of the area as well as being extremely archaic in their social views.

 

But I really do not get your link... this rhetoric(and that's what it is) does not mean Iran is building nukes(which they probably are by the sounds of it), but this isn't evidence of it.

 

This "rhetoric" is to point out that those who are accusing the US/Israel/UK government (aided by the Western Media), of banging the war drums against a nation that is not threatening anybody, are completely wide of the mark.

[aintforever]

This "rhetoric" is to point out that those who are accusing the US/Israel/UK government (aided by the Western Media), of banging the war drums against a nation that is not threatening anybody, are completely wide of the mark.

 

The US/UK governments have invaded two countries bordering Iran killing many many thousands of people, how is Iran not supposed to see this as a hostile act?

[alpine_saint]

The US/UK governments have invaded two countries bordering Iran killing many many thousands of people, how is Iran not supposed to see this as a hostile act?

 

Erm, did they cross the border ?

[Saintandy666]

This "rhetoric" is to point out that those who are accusing the US/Israel/UK government (aided by the Western Media), of banging the war drums against a nation that is not threatening anybody, are completely wide of the mark.

 

I agree with you that Iran is beginning to flex its muscles a bit, and it can do so because Iraq is no longer powerful... to balance it out a bit, but anyways, the rhetoric still proves nothing of their actual intentions re: weapons.

[pap]

I agree with you that Iran is beginning to flex its muscles a bit, and it can do so because Iraq is no longer powerful... to balance it out a bit, but anyways, the rhetoric still proves nothing of their actual intentions re: weapons.

 

I agree, and further, would argue that some component of Iran's power in the region is the direct result of US-led intervention.

 

In invading Iraq, they left Iran as the big boys in that part of the world. Not only that, but the amount of death wrought in Afghanistan and Iraq creates a lot of anti-US sentiment, amplifying the noise coming out of the Iranian regime even faster.

 

I wonder what sort of noise the US would make if a foreign power invaded Canada and Mexico.

 

Whatever. If we're briefly able to slip out of our Western viewpoints, and judged each country on the basis of who has been more dangerous to humanity at large, there is absolutely no contest.

[dubai_phil]

I agree with you that Iran is beginning to flex its muscles a bit, and it can do so because Iraq is no longer powerful... to balance it out a bit, but anyways, the rhetoric still proves nothing of their actual intentions re: weapons.

 

Just a point. So by this logic any country that wants to have it's own weapons of mass destruction should be allowed to create them? Without any pressure being applied or any global pressure or UN or IAEA led sanctions?

 

And PLEASE tell me that you mean "intentions to USE weapons" as there is no doubt that they have "intentions to create weapons"

[dubai_phil]

I agree, and further, would argue that some component of Iran's power in the region is the direct result of US-led intervention.

 

In invading Iraq, they left Iran as the big boys in that part of the world. Not only that, but the amount of death wrought in Afghanistan and Iraq creates a lot of anti-US sentiment, amplifying the noise coming out of the Iranian regime even faster.

 

I wonder what sort of noise the US would make if a foreign power invaded Canada and Mexico.

 

Whatever. If we're briefly able to slip out of our Western viewpoints, and judged each country on the basis of who has been more dangerous to humanity at large, there is absolutely no contest.

 

would argue that some component of Iran's power in the region is the direct result of US-led intervention. We have done that pages ago. EVERY component of modern Iran is influenced by decisions taken by The US during the Cold War days. Hell the entire Middle East is built on random lines in the sand drawn up by the West.

 

However, just because people who existed in power 40, 50 or 60 years ago made decisions based on the THEN Geo Political situation. Obviously Today those decisions can be seen for what they are, but if you had argued against "intervention" back then you would in all likelihood have been labelled a Commie and arrested in the US. Times change, mistakes stay.

 

However, to step away and NOT have concerns about what is happening simply because of bad decisions? Come off it, that is rubbish - People or Regimes can't accept a mistake and move on to the new reality? Would Saints would have to forever stay in the Lower Leagues because of mistakes made by previous regimes? As it was all there fault?

 

In invading Iraq, they left Iran as the big boys in that part of the world Totally different regime different time line different mistake - Dubya made THIS mistake. People tried to tell him, they were hounded out. I got into a heated argument with the Yanks I worked with - Bush was (at the time) seen as a God for Corporate America - NOBODY wanted to listen. the world has never done something that everyone TRIED to argue against? Ha they ALWAYS do it - that's "Political Opinion" for you! - no forget the Anti-War demo type's I mean serious experts. They were ridiculed and pilloried - an EXACT replica of the idiots that created the Euro - did ANYONE listen to people tyring to argue logically? It was IDIOTIC to create the Euro with the structure they did in the same way it was IDIOTIC to invade Iraq in exactly the SAME way it would be IDIOTIC to invade (or even bomb) Iran. (But if Invasion was IDIOTIC, the total lack of a PLAN for what to do AFTER the war was criminal)

 

But FFS you are talking about the Americans here - they've made IDIOTIC mistakes TWICE already. And the Lefties were no better THEY made the same mistake in Afghanistan that the British made way back in the days of the Khyber Pass. Again great WAR guys. What was the plan once you won? (I refer everyon to the last 15 minutes of Charlie Wilson's War btw)

 

Anyway the POINT is

 

Rhetoric, pressure and a Media Battle = Fanbloodytastic. As long as that is ALL that happens.

 

BUT the harsh REALITY (ie sod everyone's opinions on here) The MINUTE Iran starts to move materials or warheads around to fit onto their ICBM's Israel's intelligence service will know about it and will bomb it.

 

The "fallout" in both senses of the word will be a disaster.

 

The ONLY way to stop the inevitability of it?

 

Force them to stop BEFORE they reach that point.

Edited 18 January, 2012 by dubai_phil

[pap]

Just a point. So by this logic any country that wants to have it's own weapons of mass destruction should be allowed to create them? Without any pressure being applied or any global pressure or UN or IAEA led sanctions?

 

And PLEASE tell me that you mean "intentions to USE weapons" as there is no doubt that they have "intentions to create weapons"

 

It's not really a case of "allowed" to create them, is it? India and Pakistan didn't have special dispensation to create their own nukes, yet they have them now and no-one is really making a large fuss about it.

 

The problem with UN involvement is that we create a massive double standard. It's okay for Israel to flout tons of UN resolutions, effectively practice apartheid and have WMD.

 

Why is okay to ignore Israel's contempt for the UN and then use the self-same organisation to apply sanctions to Iran?

[pap]

BUT the harsh REALITY (ie sod everyone's opinions on here) The MINUTE Iran starts to move materials or warheads around to fit onto their ICBM's Israel's intelligence service will know about it and will bomb it.

 

The "fallout" in both senses of the word will be a disaster.

 

The ONLY way to stop the inevitability of it?

 

Force them to stop BEFORE they reach that point.

 

Or, alternatively, stop backing Israel to the hilt on its disgusting foreign policy and human rights record, another point I made ages ago.

 

You assert that the only way to stop an Iran/Israel conflict is to apply pressure to Iran. We need to be a lot firmer with Israel, and let them know that there are some paths that they will need to walk alone.

[alpine_saint]

I agree, and further, would argue that some component of Iran's power in the region is the direct result of US-led intervention.

 

In invading Iraq, they left Iran as the big boys in that part of the world. Not only that, but the amount of death wrought in Afghanistan and Iraq creates a lot of anti-US sentiment, amplifying the noise coming out of the Iranian regime even faster.

 

I wonder what sort of noise the US would make if a foreign power invaded Canada and Mexico.

 

Whatever. If we're briefly able to slip out of our Western viewpoints, and judged each country on the basis of who has been more dangerous to humanity at large, there is absolutely no contest.

 

Wow, what a surprise. More finger pointing and childish p*sing-up-the-wall contests.

[alpine_saint]

would argue that some component of Iran's power in the region is the direct result of US-led intervention. We have done that pages ago. EVERY component of modern Iran is influenced by decisions taken by The US during the Cold War days. Hell the entire Middle East is built on random lines in the sand drawn up by the West.

 

However, just because people who existed in power 40, 50 or 60 years ago made decisions based on the THEN Geo Political situation. Obviously Today those decisions can be seen for what they are, but if you had argued against "intervention" back then you would in all likelihood have been labelled a Commie and arrested in the US. Times change, mistakes stay.

 

However, to step away and NOT have concerns about what is happening simply because of bad decisions? Come off it, that is rubbish - People or Regimes can't accept a mistake and move on to the new reality? Would Saints would have to forever stay in the Lower Leagues because of mistakes made by previous regimes? As it was all there fault?

 

In invading Iraq, they left Iran as the big boys in that part of the world Totally different regime different time line different mistake - Dubya made THIS mistake. People tried to tell him, they were hounded out. I got into a heated argument with the Yanks I worked with - Bush was (at the time) seen as a God for Corporate America - NOBODY wanted to listen. the world has never done something that everyone TRIED to argue against? Ha they ALWAYS do it - that's "Political Opinion" for you! - no forget the Anti-War demo type's I mean serious experts. They were ridiculed and pilloried - an EXACT replica of the idiots that created the Euro - did ANYONE listen to people tyring to argue logically? It was IDIOTIC to create the Euro with the structure they did in the same way it was IDIOTIC to invade Iraq in exactly the SAME way it would be IDIOTIC to invade (or even bomb) Iran. (But if Invasion was IDIOTIC, the total lack of a PLAN for what to do AFTER the war was criminal)

 

But FFS you are talking about the Americans here - they've made IDIOTIC mistakes TWICE already. And the Lefties were no better THEY made the same mistake in Afghanistan that the British made way back in the days of the Khyber Pass. Again great WAR guys. What was the plan once you won? (I refer everyon to the last 15 minutes of Charlie Wilson's War btw)

 

Anyway the POINT is

 

Rhetoric, pressure and a Media Battle = Fanbloodytastic. As long as that is ALL that happens.

 

BUT the harsh REALITY (ie sod everyone's opinions on here) The MINUTE Iran starts to move materials or warheads around to fit onto their ICBM's Israel's intelligence service will know about it and will bomb it.

 

The "fallout" in both senses of the word will be a disaster.

 

The ONLY way to stop the inevitability of it?

 

Force them to stop BEFORE they reach that point.

 

Good post, Phil.

 

I am still reeling at the stupid university debating mentality on here trying to justify a country like Iran building nukes.

[alpine_saint]

Or, alternatively, stop backing Israel to the hilt on its disgusting foreign policy and human rights record, another point I made ages ago.

 

You assert that the only way to stop an Iran/Israel conflict is to apply pressure to Iran. We need to be a lot firmer with Israel, and let them know that there are some paths that they will need to walk alone.

 

Hehehehe. Mixing issues up to divert attention. Quite sad, and the admission of playing a weak hand in the argument.

[alpine_saint]

It's not really a case of "allowed" to create them, is it? India and Pakistan didn't have special dispensation to create their own nukes, yet they have them now and no-one is really making a large fuss about it.

 

The problem with UN involvement is that we create a massive double standard. It's okay for Israel to flout tons of UN resolutions, effectively practice apartheid and have WMD.

 

Why is okay to ignore Israel's contempt for the UN and then use the self-same organisation to apply sanctions to Iran?

 

Unbelievable comparison being made there. I want to know when Israel used any sort of CBRN weapon to kill millions of Palestinians, I must have missed that. My bad...

[dubai_phil]

Or, alternatively, stop backing Israel to the hilt on its disgusting foreign policy and human rights record, another point I made ages ago.

 

You assert that the only way to stop an Iran/Israel conflict is to apply pressure to Iran. We need to be a lot firmer with Israel, and let them know that there are some paths that they will need to walk alone.

 

Well duh yes.

 

And it STILL would not stop them bombing the hell out of any attempted movement of warheads in Iran.

 

The Israeli psyche is built upon Persecution. You HONESTLY think that some Western Politician could stand up in Public and say Don't defend yourselves or we won't talk to you or trade with you ever again?

 

Oh dear

[dubai_phil]

Look this is NOT a debate about Israel. Go start another thread about that mess, in the same way that this is not a debate as to whether extreme interpretations of Islam mean that Western Values must be destroyed.

 

It's about whether War is Inevitable?

 

Options -

Stop Iran building Nukes

Tell Israel not to defend itself because you won't talk to them again

Sit in a cave with fingers in ears going lalala

Make America Vanish

Pray for Divine Intervention in the form of a new revolution in Iran

 

Send TDD down the Med to Nuke Israel ourselves because it's all their fault

 

Or do the Jack Nicholson let's all get along speech from Mars Attacks.

 

Nobody is saying whether it is right or wrong. It's just going to happen and to all intents and purposes already has (Car Bombs), and was made inevitable by the Moron Bush & the Leftie luvvies in UK at the time

 

Simple answer - We are concerned at the situation. That concern level is higher than at any time in the past 18 years

[Saint in Paradise]

I wonder what the position would have been now IF the Shah hadn't been overthrown?

 

The U.S. were in the process of selling nuclear power stations to Iran just before that

coup.

[pap]

Well duh yes.

 

And it STILL would not stop them bombing the hell out of any attempted movement of warheads in Iran.

 

The Israeli psyche is built upon Persecution. You HONESTLY think that some Western Politician could stand up in Public and say Don't defend yourselves or we won't talk to you or trade with you ever again?

 

Framed like that, of course not.

 

There is a difference of opinion in what constitutes 'defence' though. For me, that would involve defending the homeland. For the Israelis, that can involve anything from killing civilians in or around its borders, to storming an aid flotilla.

 

I can see how keen you are to remove Israel from the equation here, but really, the feelings between them and Iran are central to the tensions in the region. All this rhetoric really achieves is to divert our attention away from the elephant in the room by making out there's a country of demons just over the water.

 

It's pathetic, simplistic, and judging from some of the responses on this forum, highly effective.

[pap]

I wonder what the position would have been now IF the Shah hadn't been overthrown?

 

The U.S. were in the process of selling nuclear power stations to Iran just before that

coup.

 

They would have nuclear power and nuclear weapons already, and the West probably would not bat an eyelid.

[pap]

Options -

Stop Iran building Nukes

Tell Israel not to defend itself because you won't talk to them again

Sit in a cave with fingers in ears going lalala

Make America Vanish

Pray for Divine Intervention in the form of a new revolution in Iran

 

Got a few more for you:-

 

a) Put pressure on Israel to resolve the Palestinian question

b) Respond to the semi-regular overtures from Iran for better with relations with better relations, rather than put them in a group called the "Axis of Evil"

c) New American government with a less interventionalist approach

d) Remove any oil/gas from Iran.

 

Honestly, Phil - you do yourself no favours by framing these scenarios in the way you do.

[Verbal]

Got a few more for you:-

 

a) Put pressure on Israel to resolve the Palestinian question

b) Respond to the semi-regular overtures from Iran for better with relations with better relations, rather than put them in a group called the "Axis of Evil"

c) New American government with a less interventionalist approach

d) Remove any oil/gas from Iran.

 

Honestly, Phil - you do yourself no favours by framing these scenarios in the way you do.

 

I agree. The 'nothing will ever change' brigade sound even odder when they emanate from the very region where change is rife.

[dubai_phil]

Got a few more for you:-

 

a) Put pressure on Israel to resolve the Palestinian question

b) Respond to the semi-regular overtures from Iran for better with relations with better relations, rather than put them in a group called the "Axis of Evil"

c) New American government with a less interventionalist approach

d) Remove any oil/gas from Iran.

 

Honestly, Phil - you do yourself no favours by framing these scenarios in the way you do.

 

I look at Reality.

 

Reality is that a US President cannot be elected without the support of and money from "The Jewish Vote"

 

THAT is the Elephant in the room, always has been and always will be.

 

Better relations - why yes of course. BUT again the psyche down here is alien to many Western ways - you'd call it two faced I guess. Yes of course we will stop building bombs....

 

Resolve the Palestinian Issue - impossible, they can't even stop expansionism by settlers, heck they are starting to have problems with their own "Ultra Orthodox extremists" Still, don't worry Tony Blair is on the case, he'll solve it

 

Obama WAS a new Government with a less interventionist approach - hell even an understanding of Islam, but behind the scenes besides the Political support issues are the local Military Industrial combine. Spend defence dollars or put entire States out of work. Have to have an enemy or you can't justify the spending. How to change that? get elected President and rip up Washington...

 

How do you get elected President? With donations from "Key Interest Groups" oops sorry backers.

 

There WAS a time for closer ties, 15 or so years ago, but the US had to balance being friendly with Iraq & Iran to maintan the status quo. 10+ years ago Dubya came along and wasn't going to talk to anyone - Honestly MUCH more than the Shah etc, it is that one man who has so framed the mess

 

Remove Oil & Gas - THAT is the answer - hit their revenues. That will hit the Middle Calsses and THEY will not be happy about it. THAT is the way, but even so you get excuses from Greece, Spain. the Chinese aren't that keen on joining in an embargo. It could take months to rebuild Greek refineries to take other types of Crude (who's ginna pay THAT bill?) So it could take 3 to 6 months to have an impact.

 

And then still where are we?

 

MORE Oil pumped from Qatar Saudi Kuwait, and put into MORE ships and sailed right past? Iran.

 

They won't hot a Tanker or two? Well they did before, they just have to declare the Straits closed and woosh Insurance and costs fly through the roof and teh global economy gets hit just when it cannot cope with it

 

The suggestions are sensible. Ain't going to happen, unless the PEOPLE of Israel want it as well

[pap]

Phil - you make some very good points, and I agree with some of the issues that you have enumerated. Unfortunately, some of the issues you list just aren't up for public discussion.

 

However, I don't think that this represents something immutable. The world changes every day, and with the debate expanding past traditional media, people are exposed to ideas that aren't being espoused in mainstream media.

 

On your last point, do you think it correct that Israel is able to exert such a disproportionate amount of influence?

[dubai_phil]

Phil - you make some very good points, and I agree with some of the issues that you have enumerated. Unfortunately, some of the issues you list just aren't up for public discussion.

 

However, I don't think that this represents something immutable. The world changes every day, and with the debate expanding past traditional media, people are exposed to ideas that aren't being espoused in mainstream media.

 

On your last point, do you think it correct that Israel is able to exert such a disproportionate amount of influence?

 

No.

 

I could misspell pages on that subject alone, but it is Totally utterly WRONG that it can do so.

[alpine_saint]

On your last point, do you think it correct that Israel is able to exert such a disproportionate amount of influence?

 

Today, ladies and gentlemen, top of the "Country Totally to Blame" table, after a good 5 week run for Uncle Sam, is.......ISRAEL !!!!

 

How about blaming the f**kers who are threatening the status quo by developing weapons of mass destruction, and are dishing out threats to everyone else ???

[pap]

No.

 

I could misspell pages on that subject alone, but it is Totally utterly WRONG that it can do so.

 

At least on that we are agreed.

 

I don't wish Israel any harm but equally, I recognise that the approval of the West, tacit or otherwise, is a destabilising factor in the region, and I think it is wrong that they are able to foment so much trouble without consequence, and without any real pressure to make the compromises needed to secure lasting peace in the region.

 

I wonder if the Israeli people would be so ardent in their views if their get-out-of-jail-free card (unqualified backing from the US) was ever in question.

[alpine_saint]

At least on that we are agreed.

 

I don't wish Israel any harm but equally, I recognise that the approval of the West, tacit or otherwise, is a destabilising factor in the region, and I think it is wrong that they are able to foment so much trouble without consequence, and without any real pressure to make the compromises needed to secure lasting peace in the region.

 

I wonder if the Israeli people would be so ardent in their views if their get-out-of-jail-free card (unqualified backing from the US) was ever in question.

 

If their "get-out-of-jail card" (a disgraceful term in this context) was called into question, I have no doubt Israels neighbours would all gang up and try to wipe the state off the map, as they did before in the 70s.

 

Really amusing to see so many siding with brutal dictatorships against democracies. Either democracy is overrated, or being severely abused/taken for granted by some of those who benefit from it...

Edited 18 January, 2012 by alpine_saint

[teamsaint]

Today, ladies and gentlemen, top of the "Country Totally to Blame" table, after a good 5 week run for Uncle Sam, is.......ISRAEL !!!!

 

How about blaming the f**kers who are threatening the status quo by developing weapons of mass destruction, and are dishing out threats to everyone else ???

 

do you know how many nukes israel have?

have you not noticed the threats that they make?

[alpine_saint]

do you know how many nukes israel have?

 

Havent the foggiest, and neither have you. But according to all accounts they've some for ca. 40 years. I would say they have more than proven in that time that they havent made idle threats with them or used them..........

 

have you not noticed the threats that they make?

 

Nope, no I havent. Please cite the last time they threatened a neighbour directly or threatened legal transit through nearby sea lanes. I suggest it was a rather a long time ago, certainly not as recently as Iran has.......

[buctootim]

I wonder if the Israeli people would be so ardent in their views if their get-out-of-jail-free card (unqualified backing from the US) was ever in question.

 

Or indeed if the $2.5bn the US gives them in direct military aid each year was in question.

[teamsaint]

Havent the foggiest, and neither have you. But according to all accounts they've some for ca. 40 years. I would say they have more than proven in that time that they havent made idle threats with them or used them..........

 

 

 

Nope, no I havent. Please cite the last time they threatened a neighbour directly or threatened legal transit through nearby sea lanes. I suggest it was a rather a long time ago, certainly not as recently as Iran has.......

 

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/248543/20111114/israel-threatens-strike-iran-u-s-permission.htm

 

And according to wikipedia, the have over 400 warheads.

Thats 400. Iran has none. or just possibly might be building one.

 

If it kicks off, which country would you want to be in?

[alpine_saint]

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/248543/20111114/israel-threatens-strike-iran-u-s-permission.htm

 

And according to wikipedia, the have over 400 warheads.

Thats 400. Iran has none. or just possibly might be building one.

 

If it kicks off, which country would you want to be in?

 

Oh. According to Wikipedia, which actually has the other end of the range as 75 (but you chose not to reveal that fact as it somewhat dented your argument)....

 

And its all an assumption because the offical line is one of "nuclear ambiguity"

 

Seeing as one is enough to kill millions, I dont think it matters if you toast or carbonise, and I dont think it makes a difference which country you are in down there, especially when as someone else said on here, you consider how closely-packed the Middle East is in reality.

 

USSR had about 30,000 warheads at the height of the Cold War, compared to a few hundred in Britain. Did that mean an attack on us was inevitable ? No. If we had started threatening Soviet Navy capital ships and threatend to blockade the GIUK gap, maybe eventually... But we had more sense than that. Another reason not to trust Iran with nukes.

 

EDIT: Jesus, I just read that link. Since when has refusing to seek the permission of the US to attack equated threatening to do so ? And it was in November last year. As I said earlier, a long time before Irans threats these last 2 weeks. And Ehud Barak has said in the last week that Israel is a long way from making an attack.

Edited 19 January, 2012 by alpine_saint

[teamsaint]

Oh. According to Wikipedia, which actually has the other end of the range as 75 (but you chose not to reveal that fact as it somewhat dented your argument)....

 

And its all an assumption because the offical line is one of "nuclear ambiguity"

 

Seeing as one is enough to kill millions, I dont think it matters if you toast or carbonise, and I dont think it makes a difference which country you are in down there, especially when as someone else said on here, you consider how closely-packed the Middle East is in reality.

 

USSR had about 30,000 warheads at the height of the Cold War, compared to a few hundred in Britain. Did that mean an attack on us was inevitable ? No. If we had started threatening Soviet Navy capital ships and threatend to blockade the GIUK gap, maybe eventually... But we had more sense than that. Another reason not to trust Iran with nukes.

 

EDIT: Jesus, I just read that link. Since when has refusing to seek the permission of the US to attack equated threatening to do so ? And it was in November last year. As I said earlier, a long time before Irans threats these last 2 weeks. And Ehud Barak has said in the last week that Israel is a long way from making an attack.

 

how on earth does 75 "dent my argument"?

i still know which country i would want to be in . 75 to 1(possibly).easy maths, alps.

i think the link is a very definite threat. I suspect that is the way Iran will read it.

[Verbal]

how on earth does 75 "dent my argument"?

i still know which country i would want to be in . 75 to 1(possibly).easy maths, alps.

i think the link is a very definite threat. I suspect that is the way Iran will read it.

 

The US government is also on record as saying that the Israelis hold stocks of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Heaven only knows how they could possibly use them in the cupboard-space that is the Mediterranean Middle East.

[alpine_saint]

The US government is also on record as saying that the Israelis hold stocks of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Heaven only knows how they could possibly use them in the cupboard-space that is the Mediterranean Middle East.

 

They eat babies too.

[alpine_saint]

how on earth does 75 "dent my argument"?

i still know which country i would want to be in . 75 to 1(possibly).easy maths, alps.

i think the link is a very definite threat. I suspect that is the way Iran will read it.

 

You thought the 400 was important enough to emphasise, whereas its a totally speculative figure.

 

And i get accused of hysteria...

 

and I dont think the threat is realistic for now. The Israeli government is currently satisfied with admiring Mossad's handiwork with the Iranian scientists..

[Verbal]

They eat babies too.

 

What does this mean? How does it add to the debate? Do you have a refutation in mind?

 

Are you 12? Off you f uck, Alpine. You really are useless.

[alpine_saint]

What does this mean? How does it add to the debate? Do you have a refutation in mind?

 

Are you 12? Off you f uck, Alpine. You really are useless.

 

Seems you have become the thing you claim to despise the most; a paranoid bigot like you see the Israelis to be...

 

If you werent a Commie, you'd be seeing them under the bed...

[dubai_phil]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9025789/China-begins-to-turn-against-Iran.html

 

China now putting pressure on Iran with public statements.

 

Iran now training Syrian Repulican Guard in anti-sedition techniques to help keep killing Syrian Civilians.

[Verbal]

Iran now training Syrian Repulican Guard in anti-sedition techniques to help keep killing Syrian Civilians.

 

By the same token, let's hope the Iranian opposition Green movement learns from the Syrian rebellion.

[Saint in Paradise]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9025789/China-begins-to-turn-against-Iran.html

 

China now putting pressure on Iran with public statements.

 

Iran now training Syrian Repulican Guard in anti-sedition techniques to help keep killing Syrian Civilians.

 

So will it be safer now that China has spoken or more dangerous as Israel might feel

more likely to get the US to attack for her as China is not quite so on Irans side??

 

.

[alpine_saint]

So now China has spoken (even though it obviously has some as-of-yet not known, as blatantly cynical and selfish end-game as the US is supposed to have), are we permitted now to believe that Iran are not the clear-cut victims in all of this as you were making out before ?

 

Verbal ?

Pap ?

saintforever ?

buctootim ?

 

Since when has China represented the voice-of-reason on this planet ?

[alpine_saint]

By the same token, let's hope the Iranian opposition Green movement learns from the Syrian rebellion.

 

Yes, because babies being tortured and having their heads cut off are just plain statistics in the bigger picture of satisfying left-wing Western sensibilities...