[Closed] do you think iran will be invaded ?

Def some interesting stuff on that site but some of it is a bit tinfoil-hattish.

Not sure if it's in ernie's list but the Americans shot down an Iranian passenger jet in 1988, over Iranian airspace. 290 killed. Remind me who the bad guys are again?

Wonder how it would go down if Iran did that?

Remind me who the bad guys are again?

I'm just suggesting that the attempts to portray Iran as the aggressor/bogeyman in this situation are extremely misleading and hypocritical. We are sending warships there to threaten them FFS. People like Woppit seem to have bought it hook line and sinker though.

Russia seems to think the Americans will be responsible for WW3

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/10-01-2012/120194-world_war_three-0/

They/we all are.

Not really. Under international law the belligerent states or nations are the bad guys, not states or nations which are defending themselves. So by definition it can't include all parties.

Russia seems to think the Americans will be responsible for WW3

I'm not sure why you think an article by a journalist in the Georgia Times signifies what Russia thinks - would an article by a journalist in the Daily Mail signify what Britain thinks ?

The point about China's dependency on Iranian oil is a valid one, and one which the US undoubtedly takes into account. Not simply because of military considerations but because the West, including the US, desperately needs China to help them deal with the economic mess it finds itself in.

So Iran isn't belligerent? 😆
Irans not flouting international law? 😆

Eh ? I didn't say anything about flouting international law. I gave a definition of who are "the bad guys". If you think Iran is belligerent then I guess they are the bad guys. But both sides can't be the bad guys, as you suggested.

If the UK goes into Iran I'll burn my UK passport. That'll teach them.

Why on earth not? We're not talking about good vs evil here, these things aren't black and white.
The Iranian govt could not be described as "good guys" and neither could the Americans.

wrecker - Member

So Iran isn't belligerent?
Irans not flouting international law?

Right - when did the Iranians do any military stuff outside of their country? Belligerent how?

What international law are they breaking?

Why on earth not?

In a war situation it is usually accepted that both sides can't be the bad guys..........I'm not sure I've ever heard both sides being described as the belligerents.

Why no more laughing emoticons btw ? ...... two in one post now none 🙁

TBH, in a war situation the "Bad guys" and the "Good guys" are usually determined after the conclusion. History is written by the victor.

History is written by the victor.

Never a truer word spoken.

In a war situation it is usually accepted that both sides can't be the bad guys.

Why no more laughing emoticons btw

Your other post was much funnier.

TJ, actually. I can't be bothered.

Your other post was much funnier.

I'm slacking ? 😐

Right - when did the Iranians do any military stuff outside of their country? Belligerent how?

What international law are they breaking?

None .... but the yanks and uk have decided its Their turn! syria and korea to follow.

The strangest thing is that all the right wing American politicians bang on about cutting taxes and a smaller state yet many of them want to start another really expensive war.

But have a butchers at this list to see examples of US armed forces involvement in the last 120 years.

What on earth does that list add to this discussion? You have seen what British troops have been involved in haven't you?

We are sending warships there to threaten them FFS

No we are not / did not. Iran threeatens to close international shipping lane. International navies sail through international waters to hint that those threatening should not talk smack.

There are some proper tin-hat wearers in this thread aren't there?

Klunk - Member
Ok, I'll counter you with secret American warplane involvement in the 6 day war with Egypt...

Not that secret really when there are documentaries including interviews with the pilots 🙂

What on earth does that list add to this discussion?

It was in response to hora's question "Can we list them?" .......... you sound as if you have a problem with it - have you ? I'm sure most Americans are very proud of both their history, and their armed forces, and would look at that list with glowing pride - why wouldn't they ? Are you saying American intervention is a "bad thing" ?

And BTW, what did your post add to this discussion ? Or was your comment directed at me purely based on a desire to maintain censorship over issues which make you feel awkward ?

.

You have seen what British troops have been involved in haven't you?

No, go on then.......list them.

The interesting thing is how much of the worlds s**t that America is trying to "clean up" was actually caused by the USA and us in the past.

Saddam - Tick
Afghanistan - Tick
Iran - Tick

That's a very narrow way of looking at the world. Where is the agency of the actors that are not the US and UK, for example?

Gaddaffi - tick

Glenn Hoddle's ill-advised singing career - tick
New Coke - tick
The Fall of Nineveh - tick

Russia seems to think the Americans will be responsible for WW3

I like the way the author of this article seems to think that it is known which date the war will start. How can anyone possibly know that.
And it all looks like it is accepted that there is going to be a war, whoever starts it. Thats a bad sign- looks like we are standing on the edge of an abyss. Who's going to push us?

The sentence 'Israel will strike Iran and strike something unexpected/ nuclear underground possibly with US backing thus starting WW3' is a very common quote when looking up 2012 predictions. The internet is todays weapon of propaganda, looks like that war has already been won. At least here in the West anyway....

No, go on then.......list them.

You can access Wiki and Small Wars as well as I can. I'd suggest that anything in the American list on their mainland would be classed as MACP so the Gloucestershire floods and digging grannies out of snow drifts (and battering Liverpudlian rioters) would be on that list for British forces.

I mentioned it as showing the list of what one country has been involved with internationally, when we have done so much to so many, was needing a bit of context as the Brits are as bad.

No we are not / did not. Iran threeatens to close international shipping lane. International navies sail through international waters to hint that those threatening should not talk smack.

There are some proper tin-hat wearers in this thread aren't there?

So you really don't think there is a thinly veiled threat in sending warships there? You also don't think the 'threat' from Iran is being massively overhyped/exaggerated?

Does no-one remember the Iraq war? It wasn't really all that long ago.

Next we'll be told that the Iranians have "weapons of mass destruction".

Does no-one remember the Iraq war? It wasn't really all that long ago.

Anyone sense De Ja Vu?

So

Can anyone tell me where the Iranians have been belligerent and when they broke international law?

People like Woppit seem to have bought it hook line and sinker though.

I never turn down a bargain.

It's funny though, I seem to remember at the time when we were manufacturing a case against Iraq those who suggested it was all bollocks were called 'tinfoil-hat wearers' etc. Amazing that people are falling for the same shit again so soon after it was all revealed to be nonsense last time.

I never turn down a bargain.

Wow, great argument [i]and[/i] hilarious at the same time. 😐

You also don't think the 'threat' from Iran is being massively overhyped/exaggerated?

Based upon their threats that they are issuing? No - I think they are capable and have proved it in the past.

what threats too tall?

the threat that they will have a weapon that means we cannot invade them like we did to iraq ..that threat TJ

Wow, great argument and hilarious at the same time.

I try.

way too hard sadly...but at least you amuse yourself

Based upon our threats that we are issuing? No - I think we are capable and have proved it in the past.

FTFY

Remind me, when was the last time Iran invaded a country illegally?

Here's the thing. Given that any nuclear weapons that they develop will not save them from being nuked in return for any attempt to use them, by far superior forces and that their nation will not survive, the Iranians would have to be completely loopy to even consider it.

The evidence is that they like making a lot of threatening noises, but (as with the threats to close the Straits), when confronted by superior firepower, they back down.

They are a bunch of nasty torturers and anti-democrats, sure. But we know that already, right?

India and ****stan are enemies. They both developed nuclear weapons, but neither have used that option. The obvious outcome of that useage has prevented it.

Once again, it's the oil. Of course.

There's nowt to worry about. For the moment...

Remind me, when was the last time Iran invaded a country illegally?

Based upon our threats that we are issuing? No - I think we are capable and have proved it in the past.

We- thats us. UK and US.

Actually attacking Iran wont be the end of the world, but the concequenses of such an action might put us in the turd.

Other nations like Russia, China etc will bring themselves into such a conflict because of their geological positions in relation to Iran. They will want to take actions to defend themselves and they wont form an allegiance to any Western forces. I wouldnt expect them to remain on the fence either. So they will side with Iran.

So in that respect:

[img] [/img]

We- thats us. UK and US.

Other nations like Russia, China etc will bring themselves into such a conflict because of their geological positions in relation to Iran. They will want to take actions to defend themselves and they wont form an allegiance to any Western forces. I wouldnt expect them to remain on the fence either. So they will side with Iran.

The US would have smoothed the path with Beijing and Moscow before going anywhere near Iran in any case.

Here's the thing. Given that any nuclear weapons that they develop will not save them from being nuked in return for any attempt to use them, by far superior forces and that their nation will not survive, the Iranians would have to be completely loopy to even consider it.

The sole purpose of having them is to say to a bully f off and let us be soverigns of our own destiny.
IF i was paranoid i would say the zionist lobby is at overkill as well as they want to make sure they keep disproportionate power in the region as well.

The sole purpose of having them is to say to a bully f off and let us be soverigns of our own destiny.

You do not, and cannot possibly know this.

You do not, and cannot possibly know this.

What do you think they plan to do with them? Nuke Israel? Really?

The US would have smoothed the path with Beijing and Moscow before going anywhere near Iran in any case.

Lets hope so!

What do you think they plan to do with them? Nuke Israel? Really?

I have absolutely no idea and wouldn't pretend to be informed well enough of Iranian policy or psyche to make a guess. As that's what it would be.

wrecker

The US would have smoothed the path with Beijing and Moscow before going anywhere near Iran in any case.

[url= http://www.examiner.com/city-buzz-in-charlotte/china-rejects-us-economic-sanctions-against-iran-will-buy-more-oil-instead ]China rejects US sanctions[/url]

The US is completely beholden to China now so it's more that the US would have to ask China for permission to attack. Which they won't give.

I'm inclined to think that usage of "Zionist" instead of "Jewish" or "Israeli" is a sign of anti-semitism.

That article proves nothing BTW. Loads of countries have rejected the sanctions.

India, China and South Africa have already demanded an increase in oil imports from Iran

the US would have to ask China for permission to attack. Which they won't give.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that!

wrecker - Member
That article proves nothing BTW. Loads of countries have rejected the sanctions.

Loads of countries don't have the military power of China, or the ability to crash the US economy at the press of a button.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that!

How so? The US has nothing to offer China.

If you think that China would threaten the US with military action over Iran, you're very mistaken.

How so? The US has nothing to offer China.

Well, apart from being Chinas biggest market obviously.

Mr Woppit - Member
I'm inclined to think that usage of "Zionist" instead of "Jewish" or "Israeli" is a sign of anti-semitism.

Depends on the context. Using "Jewish" instead of Israeli is wrong thought.

"The Israel lobby (at times called the Zionist lobby or sometimes the Jewish lobby) is a term used to describe the diverse coalition of those who, as individuals and as groups, seek and have sought to influence the foreign policy of the United States in support of Zionism, Israel or the specific policies of its government.[1] The lobby consists of both Christian-American and Jewish-American secular and religious groups."

[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States [/url]

I'm inclined to think that usage of "Zionist" instead of "Jewish" or "Israeli" is a sign of anti-semitism

I meant those that promote Israel and the Jewish cause who include many Hawks and right wingers in the US not just Jewish people so it is a broader church

The racism card is a poor attempt to stifle debate - always happen when you mention Israel though - lets not crticise her or her supporters as she is so nice it must be racist

I'm inclined to think that usage of "Zionist" instead of "Jewish" or "Israeli" is a sign of anti-semitism.

I'm inclined to think that people who conflate terms like 'Zionism', 'Jewish' and 'Israeli' either don't know what they're talking about, are anti-semites themselves, or are trying to play the racism card to stifle legitimate debate/criticism.

I seem to have touched a nerve.

Would you like to comment further on the negative reaction to your comments?

[img] ?zz=1[/img]

I seem to have touched a nerve.

Congratulations on successful trolling. 😐

*goes to find killfile plugin again*

Mr Woppit - Member

I seem to have touched a nerve.

It's not so much that you've "touched a nerve" it's more a case that this comment :

[i]"I'm inclined to think that usage of "Zionist" instead of "Jewish" or "Israeli" is a sign of anti-semitism."[/i]

exposes just how ill informed you are - the complete opposite is true. I make a point of using the terms Zionist and Zionism [i]precisely[/i] because I have no issues with Jews. Zionism is a racist political ideology. There are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews - a fact which is far too often ignored.

To claim that someone who is anti-Zionist is anti-Jew is as absurd as claiming that someone who was opposed to apartheid was anti-white.

Thanks ernie - I couldn't be bothered. I don't think there is really any point though sadly.

The Mel Phillips defense.

🙂 Don't be too mean towards Woppit grum, despite the impression to the contrary which he often gives, I actually think that Woppit is a little more open minded and liberal in his views than he would care to admit. And for that reason I'm prepared to make an occasional effort.

Its not religion that will drive us to war, its those in a position of powers greed for wealth, oil and Imperialism. This is Empire building.

Religion is just a convenient excuse.

what threats too tall?

The threat to close the Strait of Hormuz:

Emad Hosseini, spokesman for parliament's energy committee, said that if Iran encountered any problem selling its oil, it would store it, adding Tehran retained its threat to shut the Gulf to shipping.

1988 - Praying Mantis. Done it before.

so thats a belligerent threat? to retaliate in the event of sanctions with a blockade.

Some justification for war

Some justification for war

Who has used that as justification for war? I said they made threats that were credible and that was why there were multiple nations sailing through there - nothing about war.

Blockade or blowing up ships? They wouldn't be in rowing boats holding hands.

If you are under threat of sanctions then to retaliate with the threat of a blockade seems reasonable to me

they made threats that were credible

Well if best you can come up with regards to Iran being threatening and belligerent is that they might close the Strait of Hormuz, then it shows just how weak the case against them is. Specially as they only threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz is response to highly punitive economic measures against them.

They have also threaten to fight back if attacked, don't you want to throw that one in as well ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-weve-been-here-before--and-it-suits-israel-that-we-never-forget-nuclear-iran-6294111.html

Let's take the Israeli version which, despite constant proof that Israel's intelligence services are about as efficient as Syria's, goes on being trumpeted by its friends in the West, none more subservient than Western journalists. The Israeli President warns us now that Iran is on the cusp of producing a nuclear weapon. Heaven preserve us. Yet we reporters do not mention that Shimon Peres, as Israeli Prime Minister, said exactly the same thing in 1996. That was 16 years ago. And we do not recall that the current Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 1992 that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 1999. That would be 13 years ago. Same old story.

In fact, we don't know that Iran really is building a nuclear weapon. And after Iraq, it's amazing that the old weapons of mass destruction details are popping with the same frequency as all the poppycock about Saddam's titanic arsenal. Not to mention the date problem. When did all this start? The Shah. The old boy wanted nuclear power. He even said he wanted a bomb because "the US and the Soviet Union had nuclear bombs" and no one objected. Europeans rushed to supply the dictator's wish. Siemens – not Russia – built the Bushehr nuclear facility.

And when Ayatollah Khomeini, Scourge of the West, Apostle of Shia Revolution, etc, took over Iran in 1979, he ordered the entire nuclear project to be closed down because it was "the work of the Devil". Only when Saddam invaded Iran – with our Western encouragement – and started using poison gas against the Iranians (chemical components arriving from the West, of course) was Khomeini persuaded to reopen it.

All this has been deleted from the historical record; it was the black-turbaned mullahs who started the nuclear project, along with the crackpot Ahmadinejad. And Israel might have to destroy this terror-weapon to secure its own survival, to ensure the West's survival, for democracy, etc, etc.

For Palestinians in the West Bank, Israel is the brutal, colonising, occupying power. But the moment Iran is mentioned, this colonial power turns into a tiny, vulnerable, peaceful state under imminent threat of extinction. Ahmadinejad – here again, I quote Netanyahu – is more dangerous than Hitler. Israel's own nuclear warheads – all too real and now numbering almost 300 – disappear from the story. Iran's Revolutionary Guards are helping the Syrian regime destroy its opponents; they might like to – but there is no proof of this.

The trouble is that Iran has won almost all its recent wars without firing a shot. George W and Tony destroyed Iran's nemesis in Iraq. They killed thousands of the Sunni army whom Iran itself always referred to as "the black Taliban". And the Gulf Arabs, our "moderate" friends, shiver in their golden mosques as we in the West outline their fate in the event of an Iranian Shia revolution.

No wonder Cameron goes on selling weapons to these preposterous people whose armies, in many cases, could scarcely operate soup kitchens, let alone the billions of dollars of sophisticated kit we flog them under the fearful shadow of Tehran.

Bring on the sanctions. Send in the clowns.

so thats a belligerent threat? to retaliate in the event of sanctions with a blockade.

If you're on the hunt for actions illegal under international law, you might also want to consider Iran's actions in Lebanon.

Or Israel and their close allies the US' action in Iran? Where in the UN resolutions does it authorise murdering scientists?

Iran's actions in Lebanon ? Really konabunny, I know you're a bit of a Zionist but I can't believe that you dared to give Lebanon as an example. If there's one country that has acted illegally under international law in Lebanon, then it's Israel. Yes Iran backs Hezbollah, and it was Hezbollah that kicked the Israelis out of Lebanon - something which no amount of UN resolutions could manage.

So, when do we start bombing Israel ?

I was born in Tehran and have family living there.
Have tried to avoid this thread as to be honest the whole thing fills me with dread.

All I will say is that the vast majority of Iranian people look upon Ahmadinejad and his administration the same way a lot of people in the West look at Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld etc

IDIOTS all of them

🙁

As for the statements that Ahmadinejad makes about "wiping Israel from the face of the planet" I don't really understand why he would say that when there are 25 synagogues in Iran and a reasonable population of practicing Jews

Perhaps it's the Israeli government he has a beef with?

that lie is mistranslation that has been covered many times on here- your right why would he say that- answer he did not.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.
The acceptance of the word "map" seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.

"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favor Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out," writes Steele.

I was born in Tehran and have family living there.
Have tried to avoid this thread as to be honest the whole thing fills me with dread.

I can imagine. No, actually I can't 😐

BTW your input whilst concise was quite possibly the most useful on this thread. Too often in the rush to justify bombing countries by those who like to play the international politics game, the human cost is very conveniently ignored.

And not just by those who pontificate on here but also by our media.

wrong forum oops

I read this, this morning. Insightful, I thought:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2012/01/bad-at-chess-iran-enriched-uranium-nuclear-motahhari-ahmadinejad/