What gives?

Hi Mike!
I'm doin' it somehow!


I think that, in the years, the war as we know it has been changed into a war made of economic rules and money.
See Japan.
They lost the WW2, but then invaded the world with their products and production system and became a superpower.
The only one who lost everything is Russia that din't understand that the new weapon was not nuclear, but financial.

Cheers
Gianluigi

quote:

The western world needs to swallow its pride and impose oil sanctions. We can absorb higher oil prices worldwide for longer than Iran can sustain its economy with no revenue for oil. Obviously china and russia won't like this.
At the end of the day military strikes may be needed, it may drag us deeper into the Middle East at a time when most people want out, but we have to protect our interests and sitting back for 3 years until Iran strike with nuclear weapons can not be an option.

If Iran is looking worringly at the USA thinking when will we get invaded, which they must be doing more so after how Iraq was dealt with. The only thing they can do to make the US and others think twice is to attain a nuclear capability so that they can strike back at any country who invades them. At the moment if the US decides to invade Iran there is probably nothing they can do.

Personally I don't want any country to have nuclear weapons and I hope that countries the don't have it now don't get it just to keep the problem at what is now, not make it worse. Maybe I'll go and watch Dr Strangelove this afternoon...

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
[ How many UN resolutions have the Nazi Israelis ignored?

Erik

I'd consider "Fascist", but Nazi is not a word I'd use to describe Israel.

M

Mike,

I used the word carefully not carelessly. Nazi I said and nazi I meant. The Israeli treatment of Palestinians is rarely, if ever, reported in full in our media. The truth beggars belief. There are numerous websites and charities and political groups set up to highlight Israeli abuse of Palestinians. What happend to the Jews in WW2 is in no way justification for the way they have treated the Palestinians IMO. Two wrongs do not make a right. My ex-wife is Lebanese (the MoD loved that), the daughter of Palestinians and their story, although harrowing is nothing compared to what happened to other Palestinians.

In WW2 jews were forced out of their homes and rounded up into ghettos - what is the difference between that and the Israeli treatment of Palestinians?

Imagine the US gave London to the Croatians and Londoners were forced out of their homes. Anyone who fought back would be labelled a terrorist. You would be a terrorist Mike if you fought back. What is the difference to that scenario and what happened in Palestine? Britain, who had a mandate to govern Palestine did just that, they gave away what was not theirs to give. Palestine was then occupied by Jews from all over the world, principally from Europe, they called it 'Israel' and claimed God Given rights to the land because of some bollocks in the book of bollocks. They have nuclear weapons and they have ignored UN resolutions against them. No wonder the arabs are miffed.

Erik

ps - My former mother-in-law had six brothers. Her father was shot by Israelis when he tried to defend his home, her mother died of a heart attack. Her brothers and her were herded to a train station and each was put on a different train. One brother ended up Syria, another in Lebanon, another in Spain, another in Dubai and two have just disappeard and have never been heard of since that day at the train station. The brother in Syria has never been allowed out of Syria and has not seen any member of his family since that day at the train station.

If anyone dares to criticise israel the they get labelled anti-semitic which is an appalling manipulation of the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Cribbed from elsewhere...

Mike,

From where was it cribbed?

Erik

I think that in Iran's leaders' head everything is clear.
Use as few oil as possible and sell it only to other countries than USA just to keep the balance of power and a high international price level.
Nuclear power makes a lot things possible and at lower cost in the long run because you can even sell it to the neighbours and amortize the cost.
An up to date tech army first and free power for industry research and development.
The oil reserves can be used in the moment when countries like USA will strongly need it and will be forced to pay a lot more than today.
Just in case other countries found other power sources Iran oil can stay where it is.
They'll get the goal as well.
All this if someone doesn't decide to invade Iran, but Iran is not Iraq.
They are not devided in tribes and they have not a dictator but a man voted by the citizens.

This is my analysis.

Iran says "we only want it for civilian power. Nukes? Us? Ooh, we'd never!".

Of course, oil is so hard to come by...

If everyone followed their "shouldn't use oil" advice, I presume their economy would go under pretty swiftly.

Surely noone really believes that they're doing anything other than building nukes? It seems most of you lot believe it without question!

cheers, Martin

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Erik

Cribbed from ARRSE: the Army Rumour Serice.

More sensible posts than most would credit.

Regards

Mike

LOL - I was nosing around arrse last month to find somewhere I could get a sword reburbished. Read some funny stuff there. I only meant to have a quick glance and ended up spending two hours there. Maybe Fritz should read the officer section and see that not all officers fit the stereotypical image.

Interesting turn of debate.

As a gesture of goodwill, why don't US or UK give up their nuclear weapons? It may convince those countries who are trying to attain nuclear weapons to think again. Nah, no way that is going to happen, is it? There is no trust. No way of checking compliance. Why give up the advantage?

As a matter of national pride Iran is going to try to get it or may already be well underway. So looks like they will be invaded (watch this space). Will Iran use it if they have it? Good question. It all depends on the situation, isn't it? Will US use it again? They have used it before. Although times have changed, these weapons are still there, ready to be used. If you do not intend to use it, why have it? A kind of circular argument at the end of the day.

I think any country today who use their nuclear weapons on another country is going to be asking for retaliatory nuclear strike back. Nothing has change in the last 60 years, except, there are more of these weapons around today.

Pray, no nuclear dooms day. When I look at the children, I hope they can live out their natural life.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

Anyway, Nukes worked. WW2 ended earlier than it would have done if the Japanese Home Islands actually had been invaded. The blunt truth, which many will deny, is that the two atom bombs saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives - mainly Japanese, but also Allied.

There are two tracks for this justification:
did it work? I doubt it very much. I think it was clear that an invasion would not be necessary for winning the war or even for unconditional surrender.
Could it be justified if it had worked? We're talking about justifying a major war crime here.
There's a few conventions that declare it unexcusable in an absolute sense. I understand such absolutes are artificial and decision makers always have to weigh different actions. But I think comparing two numbers isn't enough and I think decisionmakers didn't care much in this case. After a few years of war, a big war crime doesn't make such a big difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

Before anyone posts knee-jerk responses, spend a few minutes Googling the defense of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The Imperail Army was utterly fanatical: lone soldiers hid in the jungle for over thirty years following the surrender of Japan.

I don't see any connexion to the matter. Is the suggestion here that any solution other than complete victory with unconditional surrender, was unrealistic? I think the U.S. conquered Japan because they could, not because they had to. If the conquering are saying the other party doesn't want to negotiate, they're usually omitting that they signalled to the other side that negotiations are out of the question.

Was it all for the better? That's a difficult question. I have no answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

Regardless of ones view of the US, they have not used nuclear weapons since 1945.

Agreed. Nor have the russians. I'm not happy about the track record though. What do you think Stalin did when he saw the first bombs demonstrated? He said the same thing Truman and later presidents said: "I want as many of those as you can produce". That's not deterrence, it's a sales job. 17 years later a major nuclear war was averted with a good dose of luck. It was not possible to ruin the world any faster than that.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

Would you feel able to predict that Iran would be able to refrin from using them for sixty years?

I think that's a major question. Nuclear proliferation seriously increases the chances for nuclear war. There's a lot to be said for a benign U.S. that dominates and stabilises the world. Not because of some 'immature bad guys' but because with everyone trying to act sensible, things still lead up to nuclear proliferation and war.

The current situation is about the U.S. attempting to take control over Iran. The current stories about naughty and arrogant Iran defying the world are a huge childish distortion. Childish distortions are used because they work, but it's more accurate to describe Iran as besieged.

Would things be better if the U.S. conquered Iran? Maybe, I have no idea. But the moral justifications are all fake.

Our leaders should think long and hard before any pre-emptive strike on iran, think long and hard not only about the human casualties but the economic collapse that will be the fallout of a war, if you think the 3 day week was bad enough during the 70's, be prepared for the no day week.
If after this you're quite happy to get behind george and tony then you can take the consequences too.
Best wishes.

quote:

Originally posted by Van the man:
Our leaders should think long and hard before any pre-emptive strike on iran,.

Mhhhhhhhh!
I guess they're not those who take decisions.
That's the point.

quote:

If Iran is looking worringly at the USA thinking when will we get invaded, which they must be doing more so after how Iraq was dealt with. The only thing they can do to make the US and others think twice is to attain a nuclear capability so that they can strike back at any country who invades them. At the moment if the US decides to invade Iran there is probably nothing they can do.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Twosheds. Iran would be insane not to try and develop nukes from the point of view of its own security.

Isn't it shocking when another country displays the same contempt for the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty as the US?

Rich

Seymour Hersh has a new article on Iran: Seymour Hersh-Newyorker . He's the best source I can think of.

His articles are no streamlined story. If there are contradictory sources, you'll get them placed side by side and he won't try to guide you. I prefer it that way.

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
Is Iran less trustworthy than loony bush?

Yes.

I think it's fair to observe that Iran's interest in nuclear weapons has little to do with deterrence. And given its attitude to Israel and the west, it's not too hard to figure out what they DO want them for...

So they must be stopped, using whatever force is required.

EW

quote:

Originally posted by AlexanderVH:
His articles are no streamlined story. If there are contradictory sources, you'll get them placed side by side and he won't try to guide you. I prefer it that way.

Alexander,

I agree Seymour Hersh is one of the few voices of reason in that moral and cultural desert that is the United States of Haliburton.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
Is Iran less trustworthy than loony bush?

Yes.

I think it's fair to observe that Iran's interest in nuclear weapons has little to do with deterrence. And given its attitude to Israel and the west, it's not too hard to figure out what they DO want them for...

So they must be stopped, using whatever force is required.

EW

I think the recent remarks made by the iranian prime minister are just about gaining popularity amongst the lowest common denominator and not about any real intent at all (Bush and Blair play the same game). Iran knows that if it nuked Israel it would be nuked in return. Iran was a great civilisation whilst we were still living in mud huts with straw on our feet. What is the truth and what is the propaganda here? I'm sure the Iranian prime minister is increasing defense expenditure and skimming millions off the budget into swiss bank accounts just like many other world leaders, there is great profit in fear.

I would not trust Bush and his puppeteers, cronies and henchmen as far as I could kick them. They are pigs with their snouts so far into the trough that they have little or no awareness of life outside of their own styes. I think we should be more worried about America and less worried about Iran. The nuclear thing is just a misdirection. The real problem is the Iranian Oil Bourse as I have previously mentioned.

Regards,

Erik

Good link to Seymour Hersh some of his ideas made it to the independent for UK consumption.

Did anyone see the full page advert placed in the FT by the American Jewish Committee a few days ago? I found it quite unnerving yet try as I can I can not seem to get a copy via the FT but from comment on FT advert and from what I can remember the text looks about right.

I wonder how such a map would look if centred upon Israel with the range markings used by Israeli bombers carrying nuclear charges aided by in flight refueling were included, would they reach as far as Iran, Syria & Saudi and should they be worried?

It looks as if the propaganda war has just moved into a higher gear but as a prelude to war war or jaw jaw?

Noah at defensetech.org keeps an eye on the hardware that might be required if the saber ratteling stops and the saber slashing starts.

PS I still think that Eric is right about the Iranian Oil Bourse idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

So they must be stopped, using whatever force is required.

EW

You have been misled by the propaganda of your government. If you think that Iran will use its nuclear weapons (if they have any) is questionable. As for their leader saying that they will "wipe Isreal off the planet" is also suspect. They have always been fundamentalist since the overthrow of the Shah. It's all to appease their supporters. They are on a mission to get better return for their natural reserve i.e. oil. That I believe is Iran's bottom line as posted by others here. From an economic position, going to war is crazy. Nuclear weapons and Isreal are just side issues.

America knows that it can do nothing short of causing war and strife in Iran, to stop what Iran plans to do about their oil trade. America is looking after its own interest, requirement for crude oil and plenty of it. Just like Iran they are guilty of using rhetoric to influence their own people. War with Iran will not be quick but protracted and with more bombings at home for the infedels. So, does the west want more chaos in their own country? This is playing into the hands of Osama is it not?

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
. Nuclear weapons {and Isreal} are just side issues.

( Mike added the brackets )

I'm sure the mayors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima would disagree.

Mike, it is really unfortunate for those 2 cities and it was the Americans who used it. Lets hope that it never occurs again. But saying Iran is more likely to use nukes is in my opinion not correct. We do not know who is?

It seems America has not ruled out a nuclear strike on Iran, unlikely to use it but as history stands, America is the only country that has used it in anger.

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
... that Iran will use its nuclear weapons (if they have any) is questionable.

How questionable?

So you are saying that America/UK or Israel is less likely to use it than say Iran? Why?

Isn't because it is questionable at all that is worrying? Strangely that fact that America had used nuclear weapons was enough to stop the Communist Russians doing so [at least pre-emptively], but the world is a different place today.

On the other hand, I don't think we can trust Bush [or Blair, his follower] any more than some of the people we are daily informed are dangerous by the news media.

The only conclusion I can draw is that we have never lived in more dangerous times. But would many of the current nuclear military powers be allowed to develope these weapons today? This is as hypotheyical as the question of how dangerous would be Iran if it had the bomb.

Indeed, I am left wondering how much use is the UK nuclear arsenal, given that we certainly could not use it would the US Gov't's permission? Perhaps we could really gain the moral high ground by abandoning it?

Is that a really daft idea? Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
So, no need to wory about the Iranians then.

I feel safer now.

Mike

Chances of having a nuclear accident are greater than nuclear war? Unless some idiot loose their cool first! (ironic)

One word:

"Strangelove!"

Think abou it!

Fredrik