[Closed] Should Britain go to war with Iran?

Quite a few folk on here seem to be suggesting we should halt our warmongering due to being a bit strapped for cash. Does that really matter?

Of course it does.

If we were flush with cash and had a massive surplus then would you approve of us splashing out on a good military conflict?

Err! Can't see why you got that impression.

'e'll need some sherry with that mince pie I reckon..

ernie_lynch - Member

Eh ? I thought we were all maggots :

We were once.

Sorry for the confusion ... tiny mind we have.

Let me explain.

We are not now but it does not mean we do not eat / destroy them maggots if they keep poking at us after all they are delicious.

You are only beautiful if you evolve into hornet that becomes part of mother nature i.e. of mother earth.

Maggots on the other hand will destroy or eat everything in their path because they have not evolved their tiny brain yet, so they will consume what they like but only come into realisation of their actions when hornet is half way through eating them.

Excellent tags!

I think they're in hornet language

Quite a few folk on here seem to be suggesting we should halt our warmongering due to being a bit strapped for cash. Does that really matter?

Can't we charge countries for attacking them, ie, give them a bill after we've beaten them ?

If they are struggling coming up with the cash then they could let us have some of their oil cheap, or something.

Has Iran got any oil ?

We were once.

Sorry for the confusion ... tiny mind we have.

Let me explain.

what's your view on cockroaches..?

No for three reasons:

1. There is no legal case (at present)
2. We do not have the military resources to complete successfully
3. What meagre resources we have left will be needed for when the Argies make another grab at the Falklands in the next 24-36 months

ernie_lynch - Member

Can't we charge countries for attacking them, ie, give them a bill after we've beaten them ?

If they are struggling coming up with the cash, then they could let us have some of their oil cheap, or something.

Has Iran got any oil ?

Or force their man folks to wear women frock or tutu and harvest saffron (bloody thing cost more than gold in equivalent weight).

UK PLC makes it's money on two things:
1) the city of london - effectively worthless cash based on deception and wooden dollars.
2) our world leading arms industries - actual wealth creation, 'value add'.
we sold everythign else off for a quick tax cut over the last 3 decades.

So the UK needs war when it is in financial difficulties, either to steal the natural resources we do not have (we have always done this, this is what the british empire was all about), or to enable the world arms market to be kick started.

Many of the current wars are our own weapons fired back at us... or more accurately at the cannon fodder sent out there carrying the union flag by the evil folk who send them... to give their lives to defend the arms corporations pockets. paid for by us, the tax payer, to feed the arms dealers.

humanitarian issues are not relevant, they are a cover.

but we should be realistic, this island cannot support it's population without war and theft, there are simply too many people in too small a place. it isn't right, and it isn't pleasant. but it is the reality of being british.

the US also benefits from war, but the difference is it feels that it needs to rid the world of people who are are different, and don't fear a christian god. Bush didn't use the word 'mission' by accident. don't forget many americans are descended from brits, and they tried their best to wipe out those that are a bit different (native americans - afro-americans).

to get rid of war means reducing global inequality, in the reality is most brits don't want to be poorer, so the reality is if we want new cars and flash bikes, we need to kill......

........OR fundamentally change the way the world works...... which will happen one day, but not for many many generations, and as Alfred Nobel and Albert Einstein reasoned, total nuclear oblitoration might be the only way, hence why the nuclear weapon was supposed to be the end to all wars... "a weapon too terrifying to ever be used"

It may not be iran (but i'll bet it will be), but we'll be after more oil soon. be honest, if the government were completely honest and said:
"we will run out of oil, you will have no cars, very few jobs etc.. unless we invade iran and kill thousands of people who are a different skin colour to us and have a different religion to us" would you still vote no?

once the oil exporting countries have economies that demand as much oil for domestic use as they produce, they will stop exporting and we will be in trouble. it is not about the amount of oil left in the ground it is about the surplus oil available from the oil exporting countries. we must therefore destroy their economies and install governments systems sympathetic to us.

if we lose oil we lose transport, plastics, inks, man-made fabrics etc..... so we lose virtualyl all we know in a modern world....... we are not goign to run out for a long time, but it will get prohibitively expensive unless we control those key oil fields.

Sadly i think the UK population would say yes to murder, so long as we keep our Marks and Spencer.

If we're going to invade somewhere else, lets go somewhere with decent beaches, a small defence force, great food and overpriced exports that would benefit significantly from a lower price and greater availability.

I suggest Jamaica.

No to war from me

We've spent the last two centuries sticking our noses, fingers and cocks into the business and destiny of other countries, usually with disasterous consequences. I find it amusing that we still struggle to understand why other nations absofyckinglutely hate our guts. And why do we keep doing it? We don't have an empire any more. What's that you say? Fawning, pathetically subserviant to America you say? I'm sure that other countries don't really think that of us, even if it is true.

Our best form of attack is defence now, being reasoned, honest and open and refraining from duplicitous and underhand behaviour would probably be a good start. Might even catch on.......

i also find it pretty distasteful that so many are saying we shouldn't go and kill hundreds of thousands of people for NO REASON just because we are a bit poor.
we shouldn't go to war with iran because they have done nothing to warrant it. we however have done plenty to iran that would be deserving of serious punishment

It seems like an awful lot of effort to go to just to repatriate that matelot's iPod.

to get rid of war means reducing global inequality, in the reality is most brits don't want to be poorer, so the reality is if we want new cars and flash bikes, we need to kill......

What makes you think that global inequality benefits ordinary British people ?

Were the vast majority of ordinary British people during the Dickensian era, and at the height of the British Empire, really much better off than their European counterparts which had no empire ? I doubt it.

And do we really have much less in the way of "new cars and flash bikes" since the Chinese people have become vastly more prosperous ?

Maybe a greater understanding of the nature of imperialism is require. Yeah, sure, we'll be told that it's all for our own good. Only it isn't.

I put that we have no money, that was because when we invaded Iraq I wrote to Tony Blair with many other reasons for not invading (he ignored my plea).

This time I am making a financial case against war in the hope that money considerations might have some weight with politicians where humanitarian ones did not.

i also find it pretty distasteful that so many are saying we shouldn't go and kill hundreds of thousands of people for NO REASON just because we are a bit poor.

That'll be because you interpreting it wrong. People said we shouldn't go to war for no reason and also because we can't afford it.

Definatley NO!

chewkw Your suffering from an extreme case of 'moral relavitism'

Its got nowt to do with oil. It has got everything to do with private central banks.

Until a few short months ago Lybia didn't have one (and was very prosperous). There are only 4 more countries left, and guess what, Iran is one of them.

This has nowt to do with Britain, US or even Israel, and everything to do with the zionists who own them. They will however use their State of Israel in the way they always have as a biligerant thorn in the arab/muslim world's side.

The Iranian's aren't as dumb as they are made out to be. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29916.htm

This war is coming though, and lots are going to suffer and die unless a small ragtag army of almost 6.5 billion freedom fighters can somehow manage to stop the banksters before its too late?

ernie - totally agree with you. except china has based their expansion on their own natural resource, massive credit expansion, and thieving from africa.
however, what was once 'made in the uk' is now 'made in china' so yes we are now poorer from chinas expansion. but we drove it with our constant drive for 'more for less'. we will start to feel it when the world finacial system based on credit starts to fail, then we can't fall back on our manufacturing and we will hurt....

weester, agree with that side of it too it's very much interlinked.

I think this should be an opt in war.

All those who think it's a good idea to volunteer to do the face to face fighting and to pay all the extra taxes required to kill those pesky foreigners who inconveniently insist on having the same rights to armaments as us.

That way the UK will be able to afford to go back to providing a proper NHS and education system.

I'd like to see the cost/benefit analysis before making up my mind.

ernie_lynch - Member
Quite a few folk on here seem to be suggesting we should halt our warmongering due to being a bit strapped for cash. Does that really matter?
Can't we charge countries for attacking them, ie, give them a bill after we've beaten them ?
Has Iran got any oil ?

Tbh the military industrial complex is a great business model if you can get away with it.

Sell a country weapons.
Decide to attack that country.
Get tax payer to pay for the war.
Destroy infrastructure.
Send in companies to rebuild infrastructre.
Attacked country gets saddled with astronomical debts to pay the foreign contractors.

repeat ad infinitum.

It's a great way of stealing the wealth of home and foriegn nations all in one go.

As for attacking Iran, ridiculous idea. Iran has it's issues we can all agree, but these should be sorted internally(and they will if left alone). A war will do absolutely nothing expert what I mention above.

I'd like to see the cost/benefit analysis before making up my mind.

The cost ...... lots of dead people (mostly foreign) and paid for by ordinary working people.

The benefit ...... weak third world countries get to do what our government tells them. Lots of lucrative contracts and juicy profits for a select few. And the government distracts attention away from their domestic policy blunders, as the people, led by the media, cheers Our Boys heroic oversea adventures.

Looks like the benefits outweigh the costs imo. But you make up your own mind.

really..? why?

have I offended you..?

I was just pointing out that perhaps the rest of the world are as sick of our warmongering as we are..

Of course you havent offended me, but we're by no means the only ones warmongering yunki (far from it). We're not even the main instigators. But I think by adding our support we(and many others) somehow allow the US to continue their crusades. If the coalition countries simply said no, the US would find it impossible to get the sanctions which enable them to do what they seem to love.
There are some instances where military force is necessary though. Former Yugoslavia and sierra leone being good examples IMHO.

Someone recently posted some facts RE a pipeline which would explain the Iran friction and media build up.

The cost ...... lots of dead people (mostly foreign) and paid for by ordinary working people.

The benefit ...... weak third world countries get to do what our government tells them. Lots of lucrative contracts and juicy profits for a select few. And the government distracts attention away from their domestic policy blunders, as the people, led by the media, cheers Our Boys heroic oversea adventures.

Looks like the benefits outweigh the costs imo. But you make up your own mind.

I hope NOT this is one rock you don't want to over turn.
This will be worst than any Irac

Andyfb78

Thanks...that was a joy to read

I think No..... but a sneaky bombing of all their nuclear sites might be a good idea...just don't admit to it...blame Israel!

I think Iran is a Castle Made of Sand. If you attack, they will make their castle stronger and it will take longer for decent ordinary Iranians to make the castle fall into the sea.

I think No..... but a sneaky bombing of all their nuclear sites might be a good idea...just don't admit to it...blame Israel!

I do like that andyfb78's massive post kicks off with a couple of brief, massive howlers just to save us the effort of reading the rest of it- cheers feller.

Should we not "Means Test" our warmongering rather than just hand it out to any Tom, Dick or Ahmedinajad.
Some of these countries we attack don't even need our warmongering and could get through the winter just fine without it.

5thElefant - Member
I think No..... but a sneaky bombing of all their nuclear sites might be a good idea...just don't admit to it...blame Israel!

I got the impression we just did that.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Explosion+Iran+raises+suspicions+attack+nuclear+missile+program/5779476/story.html

america are the fat bully with B.O who used to start all of the fights at school because they know that they are intellectually challenged and soon everyone will overtake them and leave them in the dust.

The UK are little speccy gimpy kid that hangs around with the bully to make us feel important, when everyone else knows we still wee out beds at night and cry for mummy.

Not this again! Wasn't Iraq and Afghanistan enough?

If our leaders really deem it necessary to smite some far-away land then they should lead by example and be in the first attack (as kings of old used to do). Otherwise, they should just STFU (IMHO).

Bang on andyfb78, well said (doffs cap).

Tazzy,
Like Hammy from this Stuart Lee sketch?

I've just seen this :

ernie - totally agree with you. except china has based their expansion on their own natural resource, massive credit expansion, and thieving from africa.

It is precisely because China isn't thieving from Africa, that the West is now at such a disadvantage in that region.

The independent African states can sell their natural resources to who ever they damn well want to. And China doesn't start wars to install Chinese-friendly governments in Africa.

For years/decades/centuries the West has plundered Africa, now African states are discovering that the little they have can be sold under different terms. China is prepared not just to take, but to put back, such as train local people to be engineers, surveyors, etc, something the West has never bothered with.

China also much better placed to develop local infrastructures such as roads, power, hospitals, etc, than the West, as Chinese companies involved in expansion in Africa tend to be large state owned companies working for a common goal. This is much more conducive to 'joined up thinking', specially when compared to Western companies which are purely motivated towards the 'company interest', with scant regard for the broader picture.

The West is being outmanoeuvred by China in Africa simply because China is offering a better deal. Why did you think it was - because China was threatening military action against African states which don't allow the Chinese to "steal" from them ?

http://www.fpif.org/articles/america_vs_china_in_africa

Quote :

[i]The Chinese have focused on critical infrastructure projects such as building refineries, ports, roads, bridges, airports, and railroads. These projects are funded by concessional loans, some of which are interest-free for up to 20 years.

Since 2009, the Chinese government has offered 4,000 scholarships to African students every year.

China’s ministry of health reports, for instance, that the government had sent 17,000 Chinese medical workers to 48 countries by the end of last year. In addition, over 1,000 Chinese doctors were working in more than 40 African countries in 2009. China has also built over 10 medical facilities and 30 malaria treatment and prevention centers in Africa.[/i]

after reading all the input on this thread I have changed my mind..
we should definitely go to war with Iran..
I read it as

should we go to war with [b]rain[/b]

Is the correct response "suck it and see" or "what could possibly go wrong?"?

Most definitely not.

War is just a business enterprise that regular folk don't profit from.

My goodness, ernie. You really have drunk the Chinese Kool Aid haven't you? Those well-meaning and charitable Chinese giving a few scholarships, building docks etc - damned nice of them eh? It is called soft diplomacy. Every country with more does it to countries with less. Building large docks and gaining exclusivity for your own country to put your own ships and no other in that port you built (for yourself) isn't a gift.

War is a continuation of politics by other means. The politicians were voted in because this is a democracy, whatever you believe it to be. Influence your politicians to do the right thing. Asking whether Britain 'should go to war' misses out the whole route to such a decision - which is where thinking is most needed. For example, what would the reason be for such action?

So will it all be OK when Iran becomes a nuclear power? If not, what then?

If it's gonna happen, can we at least delay it until 2015 or thereabouts. With any luck, Scotland might be able to sit this one out.

Building large docks and gaining exclusivity for your own country to put your own ships and no other in that port you built (for yourself) isn't a gift.

It's a darn sight better than invading, blowing stuff up and taking precious resources from people by force though, in't it?

My goodness, ernie. You really have drunk the Chinese Kool Aid haven't you?

I don't think he has. I just think he hazzunt swallowed the Western Bullshit, is all.

The politicians were voted in because this is a democracy, whatever you believe it to be.

It's not, but you keep believing that, eh?

tootall earlier today..

[img] [/img]

TooTall - Member

My goodness, ernie. You really have drunk the Chinese Kool Aid haven't you? Those well-meaning and charitable Chinese giving a few scholarships, building docks etc - damned nice of them eh? It is called soft diplomacy.

Where's the bit TooTall, where I say the Chinese are well-meaning, charitable, and damned nice ?

If you are going to comment on my posts then it would probably be worthwhile to actually read them, eh, whadda reckon ?

It pretty clear to any fool why the Chinese are behaving the way they are in Africa......it's a business arrangement.

Which is precisely the point that the Washington based think-tank, the Institute for Policy Studies, is making in the link which I provided. Or are you suggesting that the IPS has also "drunk the Chinese Kool Aid" ? :rolls eyes:

.

buzz-lightyear - Member

So will it all be OK when Iran becomes a nuclear power

About as OK as ****stan being a nuclear power. Of course you know that Iran will become a nuclear power, as opposed to just generating nuclear energy, because the US, and other imperialist nations, say so ? ....sounds like a foolproof argument.

It's obvious that the real 'enemy' of Western Imperialism is China, but as no-one's going to mess with them directly, it's in the West's interests to block any possible Chinese expansion via territories where they have a lot of economic influence, such as Iran. And why North Korea is an 'enemy'; the West does not in any way give a fudge about 'democracy', it's never about anything like that, it's just a massive game of Risk!. Occupy as many territories as possible, in order to block any potential expansion into those territories you might want to pillage yourself.

It's incredibly sad that this is being done under the lie of 'protecting freedom and democracy', and even sadder that so many people fall for it. 🙁

Maybe they've drunk too much Kool-Ade....