Iran Crisis

Syzygy wrote: sleeper wrote: Blacksword wrote: Jim Garten wrote: I couldn't help but wonder last week when the State Of The Union Address contained assurances that US troops would be staying in Iraq for the forseeable future, and Blair sent another 3,000 troops to Afganistan... Just a hop, skip & a jump to Iran then? Probably politically naive of me, but I cannot help but think Iraq & Afganistan are becoming staging posts... But on a lighter note... NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state To paraphrase Robin Williams: "no more war, but once a month, some intense negotiation Well, Jim, I dont believe anything happens by accident in this game. Cast your mind back to those dark days following 9/11. Bush announced the 'Axis of Evil' world tour. He said they would all have to be dealt with in time. Iran is simply next on the list. There is no mystery about it.    Iran's one thing but North Korea's the scary one. Dont they already have neuclear weapons and an allie in China. True, but they haven't got any oil so they don't count.

No, but technically America has been at war with them for 50 years, they may decide to finnish it one day

Blacksword wrote: Jim Garten wrote: I couldn't help but wonder last week when the State Of The Union Address contained assurances that US troops would be staying in Iraq for the forseeable future, and Blair sent another 3,000 troops to Afganistan... Just a hop, skip & a jump to Iran then? Probably politically naive of me, but I cannot help but think Iraq & Afganistan are becoming staging posts... But on a lighter note... NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state To paraphrase Robin Williams: "no more war, but once a month, some intense negotiation Well, Jim, I dont believe anything happens by accident in this game. Cast your mind back to those dark days following 9/11. Bush announced the 'Axis of Evil' world tour. He said they would all have to be dealt with in time. Iran is simply next on the list. There is no mystery about it.

Iran's one thing but North Korea's the scary one. Dont they already have neuclear weapons and an allie in China.

Jim Garten wrote: I couldn't help but wonder last week when the State Of The Union Address contained assurances that US troops would be staying in Iraq for the forseeable future, and Blair sent another 3,000 troops to Afganistan... Just a hop, skip & a jump to Iran then? Probably politically naive of me, but I cannot help but think Iraq & Afganistan are becoming staging posts... But on a lighter note... NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state To paraphrase Robin Williams: "no more war, but once a month, some intense negotiation

Well, Jim, I dont believe anything happens by accident in this game.

Cast your mind back to those dark days following 9/11. Bush announced the 'Axis of Evil' world tour. He said they would all have to be dealt with in time. Iran is simply next on the list. There is no mystery about it. 

^

There is a difference between being anti Amercan and disagreeing with the actions of your president. No one should need reminding that half of Europe are right behind the Whitehouse when it comes to dealing with Iran. For the record I think Blair, Chirac, and Merkal (or whatever her name is) are just as big a bunch of &rseholes as anyone in the Bush administration.

Syzygy wrote: Blacksword wrote: Not even the British media are as hysterical and intent on whipping up hatred and mistrust as this.. http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060126-083812-6937r. htm I love the phrase 'Emerging regional stability'  In the week that Hamas was democratically elected to power, and the week that Britain announced it was sending another 3000 troops to Afghanistan. Iran is apparently responsible for destroying this stability. The Palestinian election was clearly undemocratic, as it failed to return a conservative government committed to reducing the tax burden on the already wealthy, allowing corporations to write their own legislation and scrapping any form of social welfare. If we start accepting election results based on the wishes of the electorate we'll be in all kinds of trouble! As for Iran - it's just the thing to take people's minds off the problems being experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq. Expect to read some alarming but rather vague 'intelligence reports' from Tehran over the next few months.

Well, was it not Winston Churchill who claimed that the best argument AGAINST democracy was a 'five minute conversation with the average voter'

Afghanistan is rarely in the news these days. It's not a good story. It supposed to be a peaceful democratic country now, since the Taliban were overthrown. Ok, women dont have to wear Bhurkas anymore, people can go to the cinema now and then and listen to music, but all this wonderful freedom remains set against a backdrop of bloodshed, and an ongoing mistrust of the US and UK among many Afghan people.

I expect Iran will be referred to the UNSC. Any resolution will be vetoed, and in the months that follow Israel will act unilaterally with 'surgical' air strikes on Irans suspected nuclear facilities. Whether or not the conflict escalates depends on how Iran reacts, and how in turn America responds to that reaction.

Not even the British media are as hysterical and intent on whipping up hatred and mistrust as this..

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060126-083812-6937r. htm

I love the phrase 'Emerging regional stability'  In the week that Hamas was democratically elected to power, and the week that Britain announced it was sending another 3000 troops to Afghanistan. Iran is apparently responsible for destroying this stability.

krusty wrote: It appears the USA are now "bullying" other countries again to side with them as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4647956.stm "Lines will be drawn, are you with us or against us, etc ,etc"

Things are working out great for Bush this time round. A conservative has just been voted into power in Canada, pledging to 'mend' Canada's relationship with the US. France is on board this time, as is Germany with their new conservative chancellor.

I dont think they'll have to bully to many people for support. What makes me laugh - not that it's funny - is that sanctions are imposed on India for nuclear testing, the US get them lifted promising to flog them even more nuclear technology, while India borders another nuclear power who happens to be an ideological enemy. Surely no one has forgotten just how close India and Pakistan came to full blown nuclear war about three years ago?! It's a very dangerous region of the world, and no one has ever taken issue with either. Then there's Iran who want to develop nuclear power, and have the right to do so, and we're gearing up for war, just in case they make a bomb one day

Blacksword wrote: However, as has been proved with Iraq. We dont need the UN's blessing to start bombing people (apparently) The US, Israel and whoever else is part of this 'coalition of the willing' will get to where they need to be no matter what.

The sad fact is that recently the 'coalition of the willing' have had a war every few years (Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq again). I was hoping that the last Iraqi mess would have been the last one. Dream on.

Sean Trane wrote: Blacksword wrote: Update.. The US will 'insist' that Iran is brought before the UN. Condoleeza Rice believes that the Russian compromise plan is just a delaying tactic... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652948.stm This is not headline news here in the UK anymore. By my twisted paranoid reckoning, that means it's more serious than they're letting on. I think Iran can count on permanent security member China to back them up on this one.

I'm sure China will veto any resolution, that will mean no sanctions for Iran.

However, as has been proved with Iraq. We dont need the UN's blessing to start bombing people (apparently) The US, Israel and whoever else is part of this 'coalition of the willing' will get to where they need to be no matter what.