Iran

    • Iran

      Iran 'digging mass graves for US troops' in case of invasion | World news | guardian.co.uk

      Reading that article today is probably the first time I've had a sudden pang of genuine disconcertion about what is happening between Iran and other countries. The idea that the USA might possibly think of leading a third war into the Middle East, after seeing what's happened to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the grim preparation that Iran seems to be showing for for such an event is almost terrifying, to be honest. You would have thought the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan would show for something.

      Yeah, as you can see, I'm rather set against military involvement with Iran, even after 'diplomacy fails'. Mainly because I think, if Iran really is seeking nuclear weapons, that there's ultimately nothing wrong with that in the current system of partial nuclear proliferation that we have.
      [CENTER]


      [RIGHT]Ta-ta
      [/RIGHT]
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Iran

      Bloody hell I've actually made the beginning of a good thread :D Might actually keep me on the forum for a few weeks :D

      The main difference between invading Iran, and the Iraq war is the fact that this one would be legal. Iran are hardly a nation to trust with nuclear weapons, and their attitude to each new set of sanctions says to me that they are in fact developing them. If they really were enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, they would have abided by the sanctions and tried to talk it out with the UN, rather than the current way of dealing with them (ignoring them), and making it seem like they don't give a toss.

      If it came to invasion, I don't personally think it would last long, as for once it isn't JUST the US and UK concered, it's most of the UN. Also, if they invaded and didn't find WMD's like in the case of Iraq, there's at least good reason to believe they have them or are developing them this time. Iraq was just bullshit.

      As for the Afghan war, what did you expect the States to do? Have thousands of civillians killed and take it lying down? That war's justified (in my opinion) even if it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.
      [CENTER][SIZE=1]
      [/SIZE][/CENTER]

    • Re: Iran

      BlockHead2111 wrote:

      The main difference between invading Iran, and the Iraq war is the fact that this one would be legal. Iran are hardly a nation to trust with nuclear weapons, and their attitude to each new set of sanctions says to me that they are in fact developing them. If they really were enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, they would have abided by the sanctions and tried to talk it out with the UN, rather than the current way of dealing with them (ignoring them), and making it seem like they don't give a toss.

      I agree that the way it looks is that Iran is looking at developing nuclear weapons. However, don't forget that it hasn't just been Iran that has been uncooperative. A scheme was finally established for Iran to enrich its uranium in a partnership with Brazil and Turkey, which the US and co. turned down, presumably because it didn't hand them enough personal control over what was going on.

      BlockHead2111 wrote:

      If it came to invasion, I don't personally think it would last long, as for once it isn't JUST the US and UK concered, it's most of the UN.

      We have all of NATO in Afghanistan, and that seems to have no end.

      Besides, I don't have all that much faith in UN military involvement without sticky results either: Balkans, anyone?

      BlockHead2111 wrote:

      Also, if they invaded and didn't find WMD's like in the case of Iraq, there's at least good reason to believe they have them or are developing them this time. Iraq was just bullshit.

      Ever since the first Gulf War, Iraq's use of chemical weapons and posturing genuinely had everyone worried that it was developing WMDs, much like everyone's worried Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If we invaded Iran and didn't find nuclear weapons being developed it would simply prove that we were just as wrong as we were with Iraq.

      BlockHead2111 wrote:

      As for the Afghan war, what did you expect the States to do? Have thousands of civillians killed and take it lying down? That war's justified (in my opinion) even if it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

      Are you talking about 9/11?
      After the IRA attacks in Manchester, etc. during the height of The Troubles, would it have been appropriate for the British Army to conduct a full scale invasion of Northern Ireland?
      [CENTER]


      [RIGHT]Ta-ta
      [/RIGHT]
      [/CENTER]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Esmo ().

    • Re: Iran

      Esmo wrote:

      I agree that the way it looks is that Iran is looking at developing nuclear weapons.


      Exactly, what else are you meant to go by? Unless you go in and find nukes, you're looking at a potential losing situation either way. If you leave it, you risk millions of innocent lives. If you go in and there turns out to be none, then you're looking at another Iraq.

      Esmo wrote:


      We have all of NATO in Afghanistan, and that seems to have no end.


      There would be an end, if the Afghans would help themselves by commiting fully. I'm all for helping those that are in need, but you can only help those willing to help themselves.

      I'll reply to the rest in a seperate post, I butchered the quotes on this one

      ---------- Post added at 01:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 AM ----------

      Esmo wrote:

      Ever since the first Gulf War, Iraq's use of chemical weapons and posturing genuinely had everyone worried that it was developing WMDs, much like everyone's worried Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If we invaded Iran and didn't find nuclear weapons being developed it would simply prove that we were just as wrong as we were with Iraq.


      Like I just said really, it's a very sticky situation.


      Esmo wrote:

      Are you talking about 9/11?
      After the IRA attacks in Manchester, etc. during the height of The Troubles, would it have been appropriate for the British Army to conduct a full scale invasion of Northern Ireland?


      Yeah I am, and the IRA attacks had a military response, if not of anywhere near the same scale, but then look at the difference in scale between the attacks...
      [CENTER][SIZE=1]
      [/SIZE][/CENTER]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by BlockHead2111 ().

    • Re: Iran

      BlockHead2111 wrote:




      There would be an end, if the Afghans would help themselves by commiting fully. I'm all for helping those that are in need, but you can only help those willing to help themselves.



      Many of them don't want Werstern powers in Afghanistan. Many of them are opium growers which now opium growth has been outlawed in Afghanistan, many of them simply don't want a military presense in Afghanistan, man civilians have been killed because of the war,suicide bombings happen constantly in the country now, not to mention a war in their own country and many people are simply afraid of the Taliban. The way they'd gain support is creating jobs and developing the country economically and using the tribal leaders to negotiate and until the US see that they'll never get full support in the country.
      [CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER]

    • Re: Iran

      BlockHead2111 wrote:

      Exactly, what else are you meant to go by? Unless you go in and find nukes, you're looking at a potential losing situation either way. If you leave it, you risk millions of innocent lives. If you go in and there turns out to be none, then you're looking at another Iraq.

      Whose lives are at risk?

      BlockHead2111 wrote:

      There would be an end, if the Afghans would help themselves by commiting fully. I'm all for helping those that are in need, but you can only help those willing to help themselves.

      Hang on... We invade another country, and the inhabitants therein who we are not trying to butcher are then expected to join in on our side to allow us to carry out fully our foreign aims, otherwise they just 'dont want peace enough'?

      I might as well break a man's leg and complain that he isn't doing his share of the hopping as I help him to the hospital.

      BlockHead2111 wrote:

      Like I just said really, it's a very sticky situation.

      Iraq didn't need to be a sticky situation if people had stopped and taken the time to think. The same is with Iran.

      BlockHead2111 wrote:

      Yeah I am, and the IRA attacks had a military response, if not of anywhere near the same scale, but then look at the difference in scale between the attacks...

      Okay, hypothetical question, then. If the IRA had successfully committed a terrorist act 'on a par' with 9/11, would a full-scale invasion of Northern Ireland by the British Army have been an appropriate response? What do you think would have happened?
      [CENTER]


      [RIGHT]Ta-ta
      [/RIGHT]
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Iran

      Dom121 wrote:

      Afghanistan was to destroy all the Taliban training camps and provide security, also the war is dodgy, with bush having connections with the Laden family before 9/11.
      Iraq was a lie, but i support the forces out there no doubt, but we have done our bit in Iraq.


      Exactly. And with war being war, nothing ever goes 100% to plan.

      If it came to it with Iran, it'd be more legitimate than Iraq ever could have been.
      [CENTER][SIZE=1]
      [/SIZE][/CENTER]

    • Re: Iran

      I think Iran really trying to taunt the US.
      Maybe coaxing them into a war so that Iran can kill Americans and show off its years of nuclear work.

      Obviously there are nuclear weapons there otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them but I think this overall is a sign that if we fuck with them, they aren't scared for all out war.

    • Re: Iran

      One thing worries me. Not too sure if any non-Brits on here heard Daavid Cameron's slip-up on TV recently where he said something along the lines of "Iran's got nuclear weapons". Now, you could argue he just spoke meaningless words without thought, but then could there be the chance he simply said something he wasn't meant to?
      Him being a seemingly intelligent man, I'd think it wasn't the first :/
      [CENTER][SIZE=1]
      [/SIZE][/CENTER]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by BlockHead2111 ().