Iran Crisis

It's the same media attack that was used so successfully to bamboozle the public over Iraq.The screw will be turned and turned until the public demands action and another moslem state will become the enemy-at-large.

Given,therefore,that some kind of conflict with Iran is inevitable,can I predict the following?

1. Nuclear Inspectors will try unsuccessfully to gain admission to the Nuclear Plants and decide that this means that Iran is developing weapons of mass distruction.
2. Atrocities carried out around the world that were previously not connected to Iran suddenly will be.
3.Terrorists will blow something up in either Europe or America and "Al Jazeirah" will claim to have a tape stating that the atrocity was in retaliation for the threats to Iran.
4.Tony Blair/The PM will align himself with Bush/USA Pres to maintain "world security"
5. Intelligence will link Iran with Osama Bin Laden and indeed they might be harbouring him.
6. Reports will detail that Iraq "Now has Nuclear Capability"
7. Iran will be attacked because "they might be about to blow us all up".Some kind of near miss will be reported,where but for intelligence a nuclear assault could have been attempted.
8. Some commentators will be shouted down for suggesting that a) Its all about Iran's oil and b) that there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons.
9.Iran will be crushed,hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians will be killed,and a few thousand Allied troops (mainly Americans)
10. A relative of G.Bush will be linked to a firm overseeing oil production in Iran.
11. A commisiion will be set up that eventually discovers what everyone knew: there are no nuclear weapons in Iran and Osama Bin Laden is more than likely hiding in Pakistan/Kurdistan/Florida.
12. Someone on this forum will declare that he doesnt care how many Iranians are killed because so many American troops have lost their lives in the defence of their country.
13.MTS will be hounded off the forum ()

Seriously.

NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state. Not sure how much longer George has to go in his term, but sounds like he might be replaced by Hillary or Condalisa. If only Islam was slightly more tolerant of women we could then envisage a Mrs. Iotolah of Iran. (I see a fatwah heading my way ) The girls could then meet up have a chat, swap makeup tips, and stop all this bloody lunancy. Its clear women are the more stabilising influence. Look at the mahem us chaps get up to in this forum. If we had more women on the forum, and maybe Mrs.Tony R moderating, I am sure we would all be more relaxed.

The 'man' factor is something to do with it, I'm sure, but I dont think there is any reason why someone like Condoleeza Rice wopuld be any more compassionate on the world stage than her deranged boss. People who seek power are usually - by default - the wrong people to take power. There's no solution to this problem though. After all, you want a leader who at leasts thinks he/she is up to the job..

The biggest concern for me is that religous fundamentalists in Washington, Tel Aviv and all across the Muslim world are playing 'Apocalypse' games. It may not ultimately matter if God exists or not, but if the MEN with their fingers on the triggers believe he does, and they believe they have been instructed to pull those triggers, then we are all screwed!

One thing is for sure, anyone who thinks the 'cold war' is really over, must have slept through the 90's.

NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state.

What, like Maggie Thatcher? That woman was so compassionate.

Well, the task with Iran must be great...  Great analysis of Iran, but:

• Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and has a huge population also 4 times that of Iraq. Iranian people is more educated and concerned and they are basically of the shi'a sect - no religious divisions like in Iraq.  This remains to be really seen. The Kurdish monorities as well as the Azeris and Turkmens are Sunnites I think
• As long as I know, except for minorities, well integrated, of azeris and turcomens the population is homogeneous with the same persian background - no great ethnic divisions like in Iraq.  You forgot the Kurds and the Baloutch who regularly dream od Kurdistan and Baloutchistan (close to Pakistan)
• Iran has also very good Armed Forces and the ayatollahs are not silly guys like Saddam I personnaly think of Saddam as anythiing but silly: he kept - through blodshed I agree - peace among all factions , something that is impossible for anyone else in the last 200 years ; they have a good industrial park capable of manufacturing light-to-medium weapons and other important items - Iraq had a tiny industrial park (except for the oil sector).  The armed forces were unable to beat a relatively weak regime of Irak and nothing is to tell us that they have bettered themselves since, but I sure as hell would not want to even check on it or even call a bluff!!
• The resistance, in case of an invasion (which I still doubt) will be tremendous! Agreed They have certainly the atomic bomb but presently no means (a missile) to pour Israel for instance but they can let several artifacts in the eventual route of American & Allied forces - not counting the philosophy of flattened land, meaning the destruction of refineries, pipeways and oil pits. I do not even think that this flattened land strategy has even occured to Iran, they are fanatical enough to die while fighting.

Honestly, I believe that only a mad, mad, mad man is able to take this enterprise... but since the name Bush is cited I fear he'll take it.

Trust Dubya to do something that stupid!!!