quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

With Iran there is a real reason to go in - even if we dont believe they could establish a strategic nuclear weapon capability, then their influence in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East provides grounds, and they are it would seem the sponsors of terrorism (or freedom fighting, dependent), whereas Saddam as bad as he was certainly wasnt.

This is beginning take root as a consensus view. Any evidence to support this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

With Iran there is a real reason to go in - even if we dont believe they could establish a strategic nuclear weapon capability, then their influence in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East provides grounds, and they are it would seem the sponsors of terrorism (or freedom fighting, dependent), whereas Saddam as bad as he was certainly wasnt.

This is beginning take root as a consensus view. Any evidence to support this?

I am not able to discuss sources, nor to confirm nor deny anything about my involvement with MI6 headquarters or GCHQ.

In the end, all that any of us have is what we are told and what is reported. Few believed the rot told us about Saddam because it was literally incredible. It is far more credible though, given the way that Iran presents itself, that they do have an agenda and support anti-Israel and anti-western organisations with more than words.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Its true enough that the occupation of Iraq is a disaster, indicating that the same would likely result from a similar situation in Iran were a successful invasion carried out. The situation is abysmal in short, with the anticipated reconstruction of facilities and society there having been a failure to date, and the ordinary people now subject to totally random death and violence on a daily basis instead of the more organised and expectable death and violence of Saddam. That much of this random death and violence arises from outside trouble makers taking advantage of the situation, rather than Sunni or Shiite militias having at one another, is often overlooked. In fact its utter chaos along the lines of Beirut in its heyday, with no one safe from anyone else.

But, the oil flows. Those with interests in the country become wealthy. That these two factors are so successful by comparison to the disaster otherwise is interesting. Perhaps if one were cynical, one might suppose that their success is by virtue of greater attention being paid to these objectives than to any others, and that failure elsewhere in Iraq to achieve peace and stability is merely an inconvenience at best and irrelevant at worst.

Given such a cynical outlook, and that occupation of Iran would result in the same chaotic desperation as we see in Iraq, one might suppose that such a chaotic desperation produced in Iran for the ordinary people of that nation, would be equally irrelevant to the goals of any planned invasion and occupation; oil and the wealth of interested parties being far more important than the safety of the people or the stability of the nation, albeit that Iran would also be neutralised as to its nuclear programme in such a chaotic situation and rendered from 2nd to 3rd world status at a stroke and so made unable to organise any form of resistance to those it regards as its enemy - subject to the capture of its nuclear scientists and technicians and their residence in Guantanamo of course, since left free to roam its just possible that we might have made the world a much less safe place overall by their availability to interested parties and their personal antipathy towards the west as a result of their lives being destroyed by invasion.

What strikes me all the time about this war on (Islamic) terror, is that at no point do our leaders ever look at why people are pissed at the west, and whether there is anything we can do to resolve the reasons for their antipathy. Instead we beat them harder and expect them to cow down and put up with whatever we see fit. The problem being, that people dont cow down but resist and fight back whenever and wherever they can. And then we call them evil for not submitting and beat them some more. And so it goes on and will go on.

E

quote:

You also mentioned that Iran isn’t going to strike us head on. Of course they won’t. In an all out, no holds barred, war with the West they’d loose, and they know it. That’s why they resort to terrorism.

quote:

  They’re not the only supplier of oil and if we can’t get it from them we’ll get it from somewhere else – and if we can’t, that all but guarantees an invasion of Iran.

quote:

  How do you reason with people who think strapping bombs onto children and sending them to blow up other children is a good thing?

quote:

  How do you reason with people who still throw a fit over the crusades

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiyari

Umm.. 3 Mile Island?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

the total disregard for the Geneva Conventions

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

the total disregard for the Geneva Conventions

Are you suggesting, TheHeretic, that Iran signed the Geneva Convention?

Or are you suggesting that a sovereign nation is required to follow a treaty they had no input into making and did not sign into law?

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

      FR

    I have no idea what game Iran is playing.  Ahmadinejad seems like a genuine nutcase.  This thing with the British sailors, and the total disregard for the Geneva Conventions is very puzzling if the strategy is to annoy and delay until they can test detonate a nuke.

     And Simply, the Army and Marines might be a bit stretched, but the Air Force is just sitting around jerking off.