[Closed] do you think iran will be invaded ?

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