NationStates Jolt Archive

Now does this shock or suprise anyone? I read this and thought well duh... They are now just figuring this out?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3A40ACC1-A3D1-4C76-830F-BCBC3B560BAA.htm


Now how many of you out there consider this an act of war if found to be 100% accurate? Or is this just something that happens and you would be willing to look the other way for the sake of peace?

Now does this shock or suprise anyone? I read this and thought well duh... They are now just figuring this out?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3A40ACC1-A3D1-4C76-830F-BCBC3B560BAA.htm


Now how many of you out there consider this an act of war if found to be 100% accurate? Or is this just something that happens and you would be willing to look the other way for the sake of peace?

Yeah! Let's go to war with Iran! We'll use the 368th Imaginary Cavalry!

Yeah! Let's go to war with Iran! We'll use the 368th Imaginary Cavalry!

Well if need be the US could fight Iran. The depleted troops bs is just that, bs.

Am I supposed to be outraged when Iran does it, or when the US does it? It's just so hard to keep track...

Am I supposed to be outraged when Iran does it, or when the US does it? It's just so hard to keep track...

Either or I would suppose. But still not at all suprised that Iran would be doing this. Would suspect Syria of doing the same on the other border. So you just let it go and say whatever or is there something to be done about it?

Either or I would suppose. But still not at all suprised that Iran would be doing this. Would suspect Syria of doing the same on the other border. So you just let it go and say whatever or is there something to be done about it?

Meh. They're probably all doing it, Iran, Syria, the US... I suppose it'll be spun enough when Iran is caught. Me, I'm done caring for this decade. When this thing becomes the future "blow back" on the West, I might be able to muster something. For now, I direct my attention elsewhere.

Now does this shock or suprise anyone? I read this and thought well duh... They are now just figuring this out?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3A40ACC1-A3D1-4C76-830F-BCBC3B560BAA.htm


Now how many of you out there consider this an act of war if found to be 100% accurate? Or is this just something that happens and you would be willing to look the other way for the sake of peace?

Well the Soviets kind of refrained when we aided the Mujahedin against them. They got pissed but no war. So I guess the precedent is to not declare war on nations that do this.

Well the Soviets kind of refrained when we aided the Mujahedin against them. They got pissed but no war. So I guess the precedent is to not declare war on nations that do this.


Suppose so, but I believe that was a get back for Soviet help in Korea and Vietnam.

Yeah! Let's go to war with Iran! We'll use the 368th Imaginary Cavalry!
Nahh! Let's send in the Shit-for-brains Liberal Brigade. They can bore them to death with politically correct speeches. :D

Nahh! Let's send in the Shit-for-brains Liberal Brigade. They can bore them to death with politically correct speeches. :D

A Bush supporter beats a stuffed drum when it comes to speeches. :p

A Bush supporter beats a stuffed drum when it comes to speeches. :p
I wouldn't know. :p

I wouldn't know. :p

Exactly! :fluffle:

Nahh! Let's send in the Shit-for-brains Liberal Brigade. They can bore them to death with politically correct speeches. :D

I'd say that was unneccisary.

As to Iran, I'm not sure we can take the US/UK's word at face value on this. Our relations with Iran are not exactly warm, so Iran is probably not getting a fair shake when she's being discussed in the Anglo-American halls of power.

If it is true, it's still not an act of war. Hell, if I had a dollar for everytime the US supported an insurgent/terrorist group in a foreign country, I'd probably have like 10-20 bucks... but that's not the point. The point is the US pulls this crap all the time and doesn't get declared war on. So the US has no right to bitch at Iran if they are doing the same damned thing.

Exactly! :fluffle:
:eek:

:eek:

Well, you need kindness from me now, what with your operation not being so far away. I'm not a monster. ;)

Well, you need kindness from me now, what with your operation not being so far away. I'm not a monster. ;)
LOL! I know you're not, you twit! :p

"Kindness?" You sure you're not smokin' da whacky weed again?? :D

"Kindness?" You sure you're not smokin' da whacky weed again?? :D

I should be asking you the same thing soon. :D

I should be asking you the same thing soon. :D

As long as your kindness isn't the "Mission Deliver Kindness" thing :p

Suppose so, but I believe that was a get back for Soviet help in Korea and Vietnam.

Well there you have it. There's a long and proud history of nations supporting their enemy's enemies. And it would be wishful thinking to not expect Iran to get involved in business on their doorstep when they're the same ethnicity as a third of their neighbor. It's not like this is Cambodia in the Vietnam War.

The point is the US pulls this crap all the time and doesn't get declared war on. So the US has no right to bitch at Iran if they are doing the same damned thing.


The reason the U.S. doesn't get declared war on is because nobody (with the possible exception of North Korea) wants to get the everloving crap kicked out of them. I'm sick of you "I hate the U.S." people. There's hardly any countries out there that don't owe their pathetic excuse for freedom to the U.S.A.

The reason the U.S. doesn't get declared war on is because nobody (with the possible exception of North Korea) wants to get the everloving crap kicked out of them. I'm sick of you "I hate the U.S." people. There's hardly any countries out there that don't owe their pathetic excuse for freedom to the U.S.A.

Um, I would say one of the reasons North Korea has been given a pass for so long is that we wouldn't "kick the everloving crap out of them." Oh, sure, I'm sure we'd beat them...but at the cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of South Koreans and thousands of Americans.

Furthermore, a country's sovereignty shouldn't be "owed" to anyone -- it defeats the very notion of a sovereign government. Yes, many countries should be thankful to the USA for our generous support -- and I believe many countries are very grateful (seeing statutes of Patton in France or American flags in Belgium, for example).

But let us not forget that our humble beginnings were spurred by the help of other countries such as France -- and this leads us back to what many people are trying to say in the thread: it's not uncommon to help aid people fighting your enemy.

Anyways, of course we or the UK shouldn't "declare war on Iran" for this. We should solve it through diplomatic channels -- perhaps we can use this for leverage in the EU-3/Iran nuclear power talks.

Um, I would say one of the reasons North Korea has been given a pass for so long is that we wouldn't "kick the everloving crap out of them." Oh, sure, I'm sure we'd beat them...but at the cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of South Koreans and thousands of Americans.

Actually, it's because no American president will play hardball with them. If they want to act like a terrorist state, and saber-rattle, and violate every agreement they have made, they need a wake up call.

Furthermore, a country's sovereignty shouldn't be "owed" to anyone -- it defeats the very notion of a sovereign government. Yes, many countries should be thankful to the USA for our generous support -- and I believe many countries are very grateful (seeing statutes of Patton in France or American flags in Belgium, for example).

Perhaps "owed" was too strong of a word. But yes, I would like to see a little gratitude, or something. But I don't see any thanks, or even any politeness from most, especially France. At least Lithuania, and the former Soviet Bloc states have some degree of thanks. That is because people their remember what it was like before they had freedom. That statue of Patton must be pretty old. Have you been to France lately? I have. They'd rather have an Al Quaida cell visiting than a U.S. tourist.

Perhaps "owed" was too strong of a word. But yes, I would like to see a little gratitude, or something. But I don't see any thanks, or even any politeness from most, especially France. At least Lithuania, and the former Soviet Bloc states have some degree of thanks. That is because people their remember what it was like before they had freedom. That statue of Patton must be pretty old. Have you been to France lately? I have. They'd rather have an Al Quaida cell visiting than a U.S. tourist.

I don't see a lot of gratitude by the average US citizen towards France for providing the very military aid that allowed them to be US citizens and not British colonials in the first place. Must be a pride thing.

Either that or your history sucks.

I don't see a lot of gratitude by the average US citizen towards France for providing the very military aid that allowed them to be US citizens and not British colonials in the first place. Must be a pride thing.

Either that or your history sucks.

Thank you France! :D

We saved their asses in WWII though so we'll call it even.

Thank you France! :D

We saved their asses in WWII though so we'll call it even.

There, see? Quid pro quo. No fuss, no muss. See how easy it is?

My thoughts, and as you might guess, they aren't pointing towards war.

1) When they say "Iran" in this report, they actually mean elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. It is by no means guaranteed that the Iranian Government is involved directly. Afterall, it wasn't Pakistan that gave the DPRK Nuke-Stuff, it was a certain Dr. Khan.

2) Indeed this is not proven, the British Government merely "believes".

3) If it was proven, this is no more an act of war than the US support of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan was during the war with the Soviets there. We're still alive, so I guess a little underhanded support doesn't constitute an act of war just yet.

4) Iran is different from Iraq. Rather large areas of Iraq are flat desert, virtually perfect areas for the US to fight a war in - especially when armoured forces are involved. Iraq was also heavily divided, Saddam was hanging on, but only just. His army had not recovered from '91, and so there wasn't all that much actual fighting to be done for the Coalition.
Iran however hasn't been weakened by a war, nor by any embargos. It's population, while perhaps not necessarily more homogenous ethnically, is much more nationalistic - Iranians make a distinction between their government and their nation, which many there see as the legitimate heir of the Persian empire. You can expect the Iranians to fight a lot more tenaciously than the Iraqis did in '03.
Much of their land is rather hilly too. While US air power could still do a lot of damage, it is a lot more difficult to conduct large operations in the mountains these days, when everything relies on mobility. Imagine the battles the US fought in the Afghani mountains, just about a hundred times bigger, against an enemy that is actually equipped with proper weaponry. You can also guarantee, I think, that Iran does have significant amounts of C-Weapons at its disposal - and who knows whether they already have some sort of simple A-Bomb waiting, maybe bought of some Russian people?
The US has bases in pretty much every country around Iran, yet its troop numbers aren't particularly great. Iraq requires many men on the ground, and that for some time to come - without somehow drastically raising troop numbers at home, the US is probably not going to be able to do any more than destroy Iranian forces. No conquests - instead years of guerilla warfare.
And finally, do you know how much this would cost? Think current budget deficit, and triple it.

There's hardly any countries out there that don't owe their pathetic excuse for freedom to the U.S.A.
*puts hand up*
My country doesn't owe its existence or freedom to the US thank you very much.

Back to the topic, is it THAT much of a surprise? Iran has interests in Iraq, as do Syria and the other FIVE states that border it. Its only natural that they would want a country politically favourable to their own- anyone does the same. The US, Britain, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa... everyones done it- doesn't make it right, but it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone....

Nor should it result in sabre rattling.

My thoughts, and as you might guess, they aren't pointing towards war.

1) When they say "Iran" in this report, they actually mean elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. It is by no means guaranteed that the Iranian Government is involved directly. Afterall, it wasn't Pakistan that gave the DPRK Nuke-Stuff, it was a certain Dr. Khan.


In authoritarian/totalitarian regimes, nothing ever happens without state knowledge and/or compliance. Definitely state knowledge is there and their inaction would mean compliance.

Iranian recolutionary guards were purged of shah loyalists, Tudeh party (commies) sympathisers etc long back. The revolutionary regime has complete control over state machinery and administration.

Oh and Khan himself loaded the materials in C-130 planes and flew it to North Korea, I suppose. :rolleyes: He visited N.Korea for like a dozen times. He gave P2 centrifuges to Iran. Those are not things that you slip inside pocket and hand over to the Iranians on the sly.

Get a clue.

I have truck loads of materials on the issue. You don't want me to dump them on you. ;)

The Paki army establishment is the guilty party and Khan took the fall. US interests currently dictate that Musharraf stays and hence this drama which everyone plays along.

Yeah! Let's go to war with Iran! We'll use the 368th Imaginary Cavalry!

I believe that nuclear weapons would do just fine. We only need to use one Trident submarine.

Well there you have it. There's a long and proud history of nations supporting their enemy's enemies.


The UK Government is accusing Iran of aiding Shia groups, not Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, who has declared war on Shias in relation to the Shias diverging from the belief the Sunnis have of the correct succession of Islamic leaders, a dispute which goes back centuries, and that Shias in Baghdad are part of the US-supported Iraqi government.

So no, not enemy's enemies. Shia Iranian Revolutionary Guards supporting Shia Iraqis, if the UK claim is true, is because Iran wants to see a similar Shia governed Iraq similar to that of Iran, as well as not wanting US-UK troops on it's doorstep.

This actually goes against Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda's war against Shias (as well as Iraqi security forces and US-led troops) as he wishes to see an Iraq run under strict Sunni law.

If Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was killed, the Iranian supporters of the Shia insurgents would not shed a tear, especially when we look at the Shias being killed by Al-Zarqawi's group.

Syrian elements may well do aid the Baathists, and Extreme Sunni Islamic groups, the support of the latter coming from keeping them busy from overthrowing the Damscus government for being 'infidel', as well as slowing the US as they see it, from launching an attack on Syria.

As to the Iraqis who would be called the 'nationalists', that is those who are against the occupation of their country, despised Saddam, despise Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and the 'Jihadists', (Indeed, it has been reported several Iraqi Resistance groups have called for Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's head for staining the resistance's actions and motives) they are perhaps aided by both Syria and Iran, and the resistance, fighting the world's sole superpower, are likely not to turn offers of aid down, as they are not exteremists like 'Jihadists' and thus would not work against Iran or Syria at this time.

That could be seen as enemy's enemies, especially when one thinks of the Iran-Iraq war and border disputes Iraq have had with Syria in the past.

And in doing this Syria and Iran are assuring that they won't be the next target for Bush, by keeping US-UK forces busy in Iraq.

But as others have said, the US and Pakistan aided the Mujahadeen (which included Osama Bin Laden) against The Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

So the US wanted to tie down the Soviet Union into a demoralising bloodbath in Afghanistan, so Iran and Syria may want to do the same to avert an attack on them, after all, the US led forces are on their doorstep.



And it would be wishful thinking to not expect Iran to get involved in business on their doorstep when they're the same ethnicity as a third of their neighbor.

Same religion yes (Shia Islam when referring to who the UK Government accuse Iranian Revolutionary Guards of supporting) but overall as a majority, not ethnicity.

Iraqis are majority Arab. Iranians are majority Persian.


The relationship is in the branch of Islam belief they share, the promixity to each other, and where the insurgency takes place (On Iran's doorstep)

I don't think it matters if the Iranians help the Shias.

Eventually, the US will leave. If not this year, then over time.

Eventually, Iraq will fragment into three states. Kurd, Sunni, and Shia.

Problem solved. Yes, it will involve civil war, but that will be the outcome.

On a separate note, Iran WILL develop nuclear weapons. And if they use them, that will be the only excuse necessary for the US to nuke the place. Problem solved - if it becomes a problem.

Eventually, Iraq will fragment into three states. Kurd, Sunni, and Shia.


This may well happen. After all Iraq as it exists today, was formed by the British.



Problem solved. Yes, it will involve civil war, but that will be the outcome.


Anything could happen.




On a separate note, Iran WILL develop nuclear weapons. And if they use them, that will be the only excuse necessary for the US to nuke the place. Problem solved - if it becomes a problem.

Not problem solved, problem intensified, in what will be backlash, the blowback.

Not problem solved, problem intensified, in what will be backlash, the blowback.

1. We did not tell them to make nuclear weapons or use them.
2. We did not force them to make nuclear weapons or use them.
3. If they use nuclear weapons, no one will fault us for nuking them.

So, instead of being paranoid and saying, "oh look, they're making nukes, let's invade them," we should just wait.

Wait until they have them. Like North Korea.

Wait until they use them. And tell them, as we did the former Soviet Union, that any use of their nukes against the US or any of its allies will be considered an act of war against the US, and will result in immediate and overwhelming retaliation.

If they are, as so many here assert, thinking just like a Western nation, then it will work.

I believe that nuclear weapons would do just fine. We only need to use one Trident submarine.
I saw a special about submarines on The History Channel, and it said that an American Nuclear Sub (can't remember which one) has enough firepower to level ANY country on the planet. That includes Russia or China. Kind of scary when ya think about it that way. It's ahrd to imagine an entire area as big a Russia , just......gone.

1. We did not tell them to make nuclear weapons or use them.


The US has put Iran on it's 'Axis Of Evil' list, and verbally attacked it again and again.

Iran see the only way to protect themselves from what happened to Iraq is by having nukes.


2. We did not force them to make nuclear weapons or use them.


Iran and North Korea feel The US forced Iran and North Korea to pursue nukes so that they won't be stepped on by the US, so yes, by US hostile and aggressive tones, Iran and North Korea have sought nukes to protect the way they govern their country, just like the US did, and have been forced to do so in their view, or face US bullying.




3. If they use nuclear weapons, no one will fault us for nuking them.


It will make the US just as bad as Iran for using nukes.

War does not determine who is right, but who is left.



So, instead of being paranoid and saying, "oh look, they're making nukes, let's invade them," we should just wait.

Wait until they have them. Like North Korea.


North Korea have not used theirs(If they are not bluffing about having them) have they? No, because they have not been attacked.

Notice since North Korea have said they have nukes, criticism by the Bush Administration of North Korea has quietened.

The same will happen with Iran.


Wait until they use them. And tell them, as we did the former Soviet Union, that any use of their nukes against the US or any of its allies will be considered an act of war against the US, and will result in immediate and overwhelming retaliation.


And Iran and North Korea will probably tell the US the same.


If they are, as so many here assert, thinking just like a Western nation, then it will work.

I don't understand this myth that a Western nation is somehow something that all other nations should live by, as if it is a superior culture and way of life.

If Iran and North Korea have nukes, do you think they will start chucking them around the world? No.

They want them in case of invasion or attack, as a deterrent, like the US and the other Nuke club members had theirs for, it's a statement saying "Back off. We have them."

By having these nukes, Iran and North Korea want to gain the respect that the nuclear club has, as they see it.

I'm sure someone is going to say something like "Iran has Hezbollah as a proxy to use nukes while having deniability."

Let me head off by saying that the mujaheedin didn't get nukes either. The nuclear club is still too small to play blind mans bluff with. Besides, no insurgent/terror organization to date has been noted to recieve anything more complex than a surface to air missile launcher from a nation as far as memory serves. You don't see terror organizations with things like F-16s, SU-27s or T-72s now do you?

(Taliban don't count. They were a government)

Pretty much the same story with nukes. Too complex and too "hot" to give to proxies for use without facing major blowback. Soviet Russia didn't declare war with the US just because they were giving rebels Stingers, but that might not have been the case if they had been given nukes.

Pretty much the same with Iran. You won't see them giving away their best hardware to proxies.

As I recall NATO and Soviet did the same in every single conflict in the Cold War and they never declared war on each other. Of cause, if Iran is next on the list I suppose they could declare war because of that.

Now how many of you out there consider this an act of war if found to be 100% accurate? Or is this just something that happens and you would be willing to look the other way for the sake of peace?
Meh, the US, UK, Russia and France between them make up virtually the entire arms export market, selling to almost every country on the planet. Do any of them stop selling weapons just because one of their customers has a war with another? No.

We've led the world by example. Why should we be surprised or offended when another country copies us?

But it hardly matters. If Bushco(C) decides it wants to invade Iran, it will do so regardless of whether or not there's legitimate reason.

Waitasec...since when do you guys believe Aljazeera? Mighty convenient that NOW all of a sudden they're good journalism...

You ppl just suck.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00013.htm. Hooray antiterrorism!

Originally Posted by Sierra BTHP

Eventually, Iraq will fragment into three states. Kurd, Sunni, and Shia.

This may well happen. After all Iraq as it exists today, was formed by the British.


It won't happen. An independant Kurd state will induce the Kurds in Turkey and Iran to join them in making Kurdistan.

Both Turkey and Iran will NEVER allow this to happen.

The Arab Sunni states will not allow permanent division of borders because the oil rich Iraqi Shia areas will come under the control of Iranians.

We are in for the long haul. If stability is not brought soon, this will probably run for a decade and will become a festering wound with no side winning.

I'd say that was unneccisary.

As to Iran, I'm not sure we can take the US/UK's word at face value on this. the UK has stated that they will not go to for this one...

if Bush wants to attack Iran...he should not take the UK for granted...

the UK has stated that they will not go to for this one...

if Bush wants to attack Iran...he should not take the UK for granted...
Heh, any UK Prime Minister who announces an intention to commit forces against Iran, will be thrown out of office the same day, by a vote of no confidence, from his own party. And they will lose their seat at the subsequent General Election. And their name will never be uttered by their former colleagues in public again.

It's political suicide of the most contagious sort.