NationStates Jolt Archive

There are a lot of people on this forum who have advocated the need for Iran to develop its own independent Nuclear Deterrent in order to protect itself against hostile acts against another nation.

Well here we are in reverse. Iran, had possibly committed an act of war against the UK. I would have been more than prepared to accept that the illegal capture of UK servicemen had been no more than a tactical mistake except for the fact that they have now been removed to from the combat area to Tehran, making them effectively hostages to Iran's wider foreign policy.

Now, since many people think that Iran should have an independent nuclear capability to prevent exactly this type of thing happening to them, my question is, should the UK exercise it's capability at this point because the shoe is on the other foot.

Poll to come.

Iran should nuke England.

of course not.

I do not want to be a citizen from a perish state...but then I would not be surprised of anything coming out of No 10 these days...

How about no. But if it is ever REALLY needed, I'd rather England lead the way. lol

Sincerely, I hope it does not ever happen.

I know I do not know everything. But I think as of now, that Iran etc have been baited.. or pushed.. or bullied if it's a better term to even thinking about ramming heads with the
US or England. Even though Iran was a major power in the past, and aren't now going by our definition.. they aren't stupid. They are still the same people very capable of warfare and aren't in the dark of this new technology. The are probably behind as we've kept them there, but they aren't ignorant of it. I think things have went on that we don't know about, and the things we are informed about are morphed. They wouldn't just decide to confront the British and the US for no freakin reason, no matter their religious zealous.. have they not always been zealous? I also am not informed for what it is as to why Iran etc is not able to have nukes, other than for Israels sake. For that I post this (http://www.rense.com/general31/didyouknow.htm). If something is blatantly wrong in that let me know. If it's down to squabbling.. well who knows.. only the true neutral researchers. But regardless I believe we are seeing some major shit go down, although it is watered down with the major news stations seeking ratings, others seeking audiences from comedy.

How about this crazy idea: Nobody should nuke anyone!

This matter can be resolved peacefully but it really does make Iran's government look even worse than it already does.

Your question seems to say that their is no possibility that those UK boats were in fact violating international law and Iranian sovereignty by entering their borders. The UK most certainly does not have the best track record of this kind of of thing, I wouldn't even put it past them that those crewmen were having a little peek at the positions of Iranian naval vessels.

How about this crazy idea: Nobody should nuke anyone!

Nice idea!

No one should nuke anyone. Ever.

global, you can't solve a violent action with peace. it doesn't work. i'm not saying nuke them, but what they did was an act of war.

theres no yes option in that poll

it should be something lie,

yes- lets grant all those Iraninans their forty virgins, and what not.

and may not another living thing exsist there for 5000 years

No, no one should use nuclear weapons unless faced with the imminent threat of nuclear weapons. The kidnapping of your soldiers is no excuse to annihilate millions.

There is a poll, you know.

I still think it points out the hypocrisies of those who would defend Iran's current point of view however.

I don't know about England, but I certainly think the UK should keep its nukes to itself.

global, you can't solve a violent action with peace. it doesn't work. i'm not saying nuke them, but what they did was an act of war.

Remember when Iranians took our whole embassy hostage? Well, we got those people back, without having to invade.(well, we did try it, and it failed miserably)

Please tell me this isn't a serious question!

Regarding the detaining of British soldiers... How about we wait for actual facts, before we starting throwing about groundless assertions? It's entirely possible that the British soldiers did enter Iranian waters, that they were at fault and that Iran's action was justified. Conversely, it's entirely possible that they were in Iraqi waters and that Iran's action is wholly unjustified. At this stage, there's no way of knowing.

theres no yes option in that poll

it should be something lie,

yes- lets grant all those Iraninans their forty virgins, and what not.

and may not another living thing exsist there for 5000 years

I thought it was 72 virgins.

You'd better explain fast, I don't want to get shorted on my orgy in Paradise.

Remember when Iranians took our whole embassy hostage? Well, we got those people back, without having to invade.(well, we did try it, and it failed miserably)Remember when you supported the bloody regime of the Shah? They should have razed your embassy to the ground for your actions against the Iranian people.

I wouldn't be surprised if the captured soldiers were pushing it... The border's been contested for awhile, apparantly. Why even risk it? Fighter pilots during the Cold War used to play games with the Soviets, racing towards the borders and then turning around at the last minute. Could be a similar case here, considering the hostilities between British troops and Iran.

Maybe, maybe not.

Remember when you supported the bloody regime of the Shah? They should have razed your embassy to the ground for your actions against the Iranian people.

That wasn't my point, we resolved the hostage crisis through peaceful means, not through military action.



oh, and Mossadegh FTW.

Remember when you supported the bloody regime of the Shah?

The "bloody regime" that tolerated homosexuality, allowed complete freedom of religion, gave women voting rights, presided over a prosperous economy that the The Economist predicted would become the next Japan, had a peaceful foreign policy, and was so socially liberal (by regional standards) that it even allowed liquor stores and casinoes?

Please tell me this isn't a serious question!
Regarding the detaining of British soldiers... How about we wait for actual facts, before we starting throwing about groundless assertions? It's entirely possible that the British soldiers did enter Iranian waters, that they were at fault and that Iran's action was justified. Conversely, it's entirely possible that they were in Iraqi waters and that Iran's action is wholly unjustified. At this stage, there's no way of knowing.It does not really matter in what waters they were, British soldiers have no business in the Persian Gulf. They are there because of a US led messed up war against Iraq, and not because Iraqis asked them to come.

Remember when you supported the bloody regime of the Shah? They should have razed your embassy to the ground for your actions against the Iranian people.

And for harboring the Shah after the revolution despite his crimes against humanity, plus supplying Saddam Hussein with arms and chemical weapons used against Iranian civilians and solders, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranians. The US needs to remember it's track record before trying to take the moral high ground.

Yes ... yes they should.

The "bloody regime" that tolerated homosexuality, allowed complete freedom of religion, gave women voting rights, presided over a prosperous economy that the The Economist predicted would become the next Japan, had a peaceful foreign policy, and was so socially liberal (by regional standards) that it even allowed liquor stores and casinoes?

Don't forget used the SAVAK to brutalize, imprison, torture and murder thousands!

Obviously, the current regime is no better, but the majority of Iranians aren't exactly begging for the return of the monarchy. I know quite a few people whose relatives have been hounded by the Shah's men and Khomeini alike.

And for harboring the Shah after the revolution despite his crimes against humanity,

ROFLMAO

Don't forget used the SAVAK to brutalize, imprison, torture and murder thousands!

Obviously, the current regime is no better, but I doubt that the majority of Iranians are begging for the return of the monarchy. I know quite a few people whose relatives have been hounded by the Shah's men and Khomeini alike.

SAVAK were no saints, but most of the people they murdered weren't innocent people.

SAVAK didn't persecute people for such "crimes" as homosexuality or advocating women's rights.

The "bloody regime" that tolerated homosexuality, allowed complete freedom of religion, gave women voting rights, presided over a prosperous economy that the The Economist predicted would become the next Japan, had a peaceful foreign policy, and was so socially liberal (by regional standards) that it even allowed liquor stores and casinoes?

and the one who had a secret police force with virtually unlimited power that detained any and all dissidents, tortured and executed them?

and the one who had a secret police force with virtually unlimited power that detained any and all dissidents, tortured and executed them?

No, the secret police force that tortured and executed people who plotted (or committed) terrorism or the violent overthrow of the government.

Do it. Do it. Push the button. Pull the trigger. The sooner the better. With the major world powers toppled I'll finally be able to take over the world!

But seriously your poll is broken. It doesn't have a single yes option. Nukes can be made pretty small these days, small enough to just take out a few city blocks instead of the whole downtown.

Sanctions and inspections won't work, they're ignored. You can't just scold someone when they do something wrong. You also have to show them what they did wrong and then hurt them so they'll think twice about doing it again. If you don't follow through then the scolding is a waste of breath.

Don't forget used the SAVAK to brutalize, imprison, torture and murder thousands!

Obviously, the current regime is no better, but the majority of Iranians aren't exactly begging for the return of the monarchy. I know quite a few people whose relatives have been hounded by the Shah's men and Khomeini alike.

Then the men who did the hounding deserve death or to spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

It does not really matter in what waters they were, British soldiers have no business in the Persian Gulf. They are there because of a US led messed up war against Iraq, and not because Iraqis asked them to come.

Well, some of the Gulf is international waters. And no one has yet established where they were taken, so let's not jump to premature conclusions.


Anyway, they should be handed back, no?

Sanctions and inspections won't work, they're ignored. You can't just scold someone when they do something wrong. You also have to show them what they did wrong and then hurt them so they'll think twice about doing it again. If you don't follow through then the scolding is a waste of breath.

Leaving aside the fact you're advocating murdering innocent people, you're also "forgetting" that there's no proof or indication yet of Iran having done anything "wrong" in detaining the British soldiers. We don't know yet.

Oh, why do I even bother...?

Leaving aside the fact you're advocating murdering innocent people, you're also "forgetting" that there's no proof or indication yet of Iran having done anything "wrong" in detaining the British soldiers. We don't know yet.

We should wait and see.

SAVAK were no saints, but most of the people they murdered weren't innocent people.

SAVAK didn't persecute people for such "crimes" as homosexuality or advocating women's rights.

The SAVAK cracked down on mass protests brutally, and persecuted people on political grounds.

Of course, the Shah's regime tolerated homosexuality and women's rights, but we have to remember that the Iranian people WEREN'T ASKING for what Khomeini gave them. He promised democracy and assured people of their freedom from outside the country. His party filled the political void and used it to consolidate power, executing thousands of Iranians whom originally SUPPORTED his return. Support for Khomeini went across the board, but his failure to deliver on his promises and brutal methods meant that this was not sustained.

I would actually argue that the Iranian revolution wasn't a success, seeing as it sowed the seeds for dissent amongst future generations.

The SAVAK cracked down on mass protests brutally, and persecuted people on political grounds.

Of course, the Shah's regime tolerated homosexuality and women's rights, but we have to remember that the Iranian people WEREN'T ASKING for what Khomeini gave them. He promised democracy and assured people of their freedom from outside the country. His party filled the political void and used it to consolidate power, executing thousands of Iranians whom originally SUPPORTED his return. Support for Khomeini went across the board, but his failure to deliver on his promises and brutal methods meant that this was not sustained.

I would actually argue that the Iranian revolution wasn't a success, seeing as it sowed the seeds for dissent amongst future generations.

Whatever the Shah's faults, he wasn't nearly as bad as his critics make him out to be. To hear them describe him, you'd think they were describing Hitler. By regional standards - and by the standards of other people we've supported - the man was a saint.

In my ideal world nukes wouldn't be used. But we obviously live in this world, where they are. No they shouldn't and Iran should be able to have nukes. I don't think that met your voting criteria.

Whatever the Shah's faults, he wasn't nearly as bad as his critics make him out to be. To hear them describe him, you'd think they were describing Hitler. By regional standards - and by the standards of other people we've supported - the man was a saint.

Sure, there's bound to be exaggeration. But I mean, I don't think that it's really a question of his 'relative badness'. He was bad enough for the Iranian people to want him out. The monarchy was re-instated by foreign powers after it was democratically removed. So, I would argue that the Iranian people had a right to remove him, violently if necessary. Indeed, it seemed to be the only way.

As much as I don't agree with nuclear weapons I think the idea of England nuking someone is rather entertaining, mainly because they'd be so polite about it.

Mr. Blair would senda letter via Royal Mail,
Dear Iran
Terribly sorry to inform but this matter about the nuclear armament is getting frightfully untidy and we find ourselves in a rather sticky predicament. I have spoken to Her Majesty and she agrees regretfully that the release of an exploding nuclear device is a path that we must travel down. Of course the Duke is all for, as he says 'Teaching the bloody towel heads a lesson', but you know what he's like in the mornings. Anyway must wrap this up before I ramble.

I'm sure one day we'll be having a jolly good laugh at the whole situation.

Regretfully yours,

Tony Blair:(

As much as I don't agree with nuclear weapons I think the idea of England nuking someone is rather entertaining, mainly because they'd be so polite about it.

Mr. Blair would senda letter via Royal Mail,
Dear Iran
Terribly sorry to inform but this matter about the nuclear armament is getting frightfully untidy and we find ourselves in a rather sticky predicament. I have spoken to Her Majesty and she agrees regretfully that the release of an exploding nuclear device is a path that we must travel down. Of course the Duke is all for, as he says 'Teaching the bloody towel heads a lesson', but you know what he's like in the mornings. Anyway must wrap this up before I ramble.

I'm sure one day we'll be having a jolly good laugh at the whole situation.

Regretfully yours,

Tony Blair:(

No, the secret police force that tortured and executed people who plotted (or committed) terrorism or the violent overthrow of the government.

The Shah alienated any kind of support he ever had by violently suppressing any dissent and difference of opinion.

If you guys want to see a real evil bad guy we supported, look at Suharto, Mobutu, Videla, or Pinochet. The Shah was peanuts by their standards.

sigh!
England doesn't have nukes.

You are thinking of Britain. They are not synonyms.

Whatever the Shah's faults, he wasn't nearly as bad as his critics make him out to be. To hear them describe him, you'd think they were describing Hitler. By regional standards - and by the standards of other people we've supported - the man was a saint.

"Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks." [1]

By 1978 there were huge demonstrations against the Shah that eventually led to his overthrow in 1979. On Friday, September 8, 1978 the Shah's soldiers killed as many as 900 civilians in one demonstration.


Like God, SAVAK was ubiquitous and omnipresent in the national imagination...Dignity was what SAVAK deprived the nation of most...To escape its ominous attention, every citizen hid what was on his mind and learned to talk in a way that his true thoughts would not be obvious.
You've got a very weird definition of what makes a man a saint.

http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/09/roya-hakakian-and-savak-another.html
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/War/torture2.htm

As much as I don't agree with nuclear weapons I think the idea of England nuking someone is rather entertaining, mainly because they'd be so polite about it.

Mr. Blair would senda letter via Royal Mail,
Dear Iran
Terribly sorry to inform but this matter about the nuclear armament is getting frightfully untidy and we find ourselves in a rather sticky predicament. I have spoken to Her Majesty and she agrees regretfully that the release of an exploding nuclear device is a path that we must travel down. Of course the Duke is all for, as he says 'Teaching the bloody towel heads a lesson', but you know what he's like in the mornings. Anyway must wrap this up before I ramble.

I'm sure one day we'll be having a jolly good laugh at the whole situation.

Regretfully yours,

Tony Blair:(

The most humble ownage note the world would ever see.

I think it time to say screw, lets nuke them and let them nuke us. It is getting to the point that tensions of conflict under the surface are getting stronger in the world and their is no point in trying to hold it any more.

Might as well go for a nuclear winter to get it out of our systems. :headbang:

There are a lot of people on this forum who have advocated the need for Iran to develop its own independent Nuclear Deterrent in order to protect itself against hostile acts against another nation.

Well here we are in reverse. Iran, had possibly committed an act of war against the UK. I would have been more than prepared to accept that the illegal capture of UK servicemen had been no more than a tactical mistake except for the fact that they have now been removed to from the combat area to Tehran, making them effectively hostages to Iran's wider foreign policy.

Now, since many people think that Iran should have an independent nuclear capability to prevent exactly this type of thing happening to them, my question is, should the UK exercise it's capability at this point because the shoe is on the other foot.

Poll to come.

Nah. The US is already too heavily involved.

If you guys want to see a real evil bad guy we supported, look at Suharto, Mobutu, Videla, or Pinochet. The Shah was peanuts by their standards.

True, they are the 'bad guys'. But I'd rank the Shah up there with them. Whatever the Economist has said about growth rates shouldn't 'write over' the man's crimes...

You've got a very weird definition of what makes a man a saint.

http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/09/roya-hakakian-and-savak-another.html
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/War/torture2.htm

Please re-read what I wrote. I said compared to others in the region and compared to other dictators we supported.

True, they are the 'bad guys'. But I'd rank the Shah up there with them. Whatever the Economist has said about growth rates shouldn't 'write over' the man's crimes...

At least under the Shah, if you kept your nose out of politics, you were left alone. Under some others, you got fucked over no matter what.

-snip-

that would be terrible, funny, but bad. boooooo

Being that the U.S. and the U.K. are actively engaged in an illegal war, I'd be really careful about saying that Iran has committed a 'nukable' offense.

sigh!
England doesn't have nukes.

You are thinking of Britain. They are not synonyms.


England is Britain, Britain is England. If not, explain the real difference when it comes to WAR.

No-Absolutely not. This is an act of agression on Iran's part,they should be dealt with immediately and decisively before their manners get any worse.

It doesnt matter wether these British Marines belonged there-or didnt.

Britain can use diplomacy-Advise Iran they have 24 hours to return all of the men and equipment unscathed.

If Iran doesnt comply, they should launch simultaneous assaults-covert ops to kill military leaders and smart-bombing of military targets such as radar and communications, as well as their sub docks and sites where we know they are working to research and develop their nuke capabilities.

We should wait and see.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Being that the U.S. and the U.K. are actively engaged in an illegal war, I'd be really careful about saying that Iran has committed a 'nukable' offense.

keep chanting that,but it will never be true.

England is Britain, Britain is England.

"British Isles" (outdated) = United Kingdom + Republic of Ireland
United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland = what its name says
Great Britain = England + Scotland + Wales

England is the bit in green here (http://www.omnidreams.net/images/destinazioni/mappe/map_england.gif). The bits in grey on the same island are Wales & Scotland: they're part of Britain, but are not part of England.

To make it very simple: England is one of the four countries of the UK. It is not the whole of the UK.

At least under the Shah, if you kept your nose out of politics, you were left alone. Under some others, you got fucked over no matter what.

Generally speaking, historically, Iran has been a very politically charged nation. Keeping one's nose out of politics isn't easy when it's politics that effects one's life the most - as I'm sure it did during the Shah's rule. I mean, the anti-Shah protests were WIDESPREAD, they spanned the entire political and civic realm. Let's not minimize the atrocities committed under his regime ;/.

Doubt that UK will have a chance after the U.S is finished.


Does anyone else think that this whole U.S vs the Middle East after a terrorist attack seem fimilar with thoose who know British TV?

If you guys want to see a real evil bad guy we supported, look at Suharto, Mobutu, Videla, or Pinochet. The Shah was peanuts by their standards.

Don't forget Saddam.

I think the UK (Not England, England has not been a separate country since the early 1700's) has the right to use its power however it likes.

Sure, launch a Trident, colonise the place, steal their clothes so they run around naked, It won't effect any of us here so why do we care?

As much as I don't agree with nuclear weapons I think the idea of England nuking someone is rather entertaining, mainly because they'd be so polite about it.

Mr. Blair would senda letter via Royal Mail,
Dear Iran
Terribly sorry to inform but this matter about the nuclear armament is getting frightfully untidy and we find ourselves in a rather sticky predicament. I have spoken to Her Majesty and she agrees regretfully that the release of an exploding nuclear device is a path that we must travel down. Of course the Duke is all for, as he says 'Teaching the bloody towel heads a lesson', but you know what he's like in the mornings. Anyway must wrap this up before I ramble.

I'm sure one day we'll be having a jolly good laugh at the whole situation.

Regretfully yours,

Tony Blair:(

It wouldn't actually sound that way. It would be more like:



Tony Blair's House,
America,
LOLLING @ U

YOUR REF: Iranian Infidels
MY REF: Went to Durham for School: Making me a good Labour party person.


Dear Sir:

I am horrified by you recent seizure of United Kingdom military personnel. Normally this kind of thing would not bother me at all - because I have noticed your fine Persian loins - yet in this case I am forced to take the most strenuous action, because if I don't, Gordon will take his hand out of my bottom; and then John will take his hand out of Gordon's bottom, and then the whole of the UK government will collapse.

And when I say collapse, it is no idle threat. If, indeed, it does, the Princess David will assume the position. And he has assured me that in doing so it requires that his hand must therefore go into your bottom causing a collapse in the middle east.

Naturally, this makes no sense, but nor does anything else written by the foreign office in the past five hundred years. After all we were supposed to be eating sausages in Berlin at Christmas 1914/15)

Therefore you are under the threat of Nuclear Anihilation.

I look forward to your response.

Your HUMBLE SERVANT

MELLBURY

If anyone should nuke Iran it should be Liechtenstein.



It's always the ones you least expect.

There are a lot of people on this forum who have advocated the need for Iran to develop its own independent Nuclear Deterrent in order to protect itself against hostile acts against another nation.

Well here we are in reverse. Iran, had possibly committed an act of war against the UK. I would have been more than prepared to accept that the illegal capture of UK servicemen had been no more than a tactical mistake except for the fact that they have now been removed to from the combat area to Tehran, making them effectively hostages to Iran's wider foreign policy.

Now, since many people think that Iran should have an independent nuclear capability to prevent exactly this type of thing happening to them, my question is, should the UK exercise it's capability at this point because the shoe is on the other foot.

Poll to come.

This is just a statement to one of America's staunchest allies, the UK, about its role in Iraq. I'll be surprised if the British sailors aren't released in a timely fashion, with reparations, of course.

As for nukes, that should only be used as a second strike. The capture of British sailors does not an attack on the British Isles make.

Being that the U.S. and the U.K. are actively engaged in an illegal war, I'd be really careful about saying that Iran has committed a 'nukable' offense.

It's not an illegal war, and in fact it is quite the opposite. At the end of the Gulf War Saddam had agreed to certain conditions, and if he broke them then the allied coalition against him could invade him. Saddam broke certain conditions under the peace treaty over 17 times, that is 17 times that any one in the Allied coalition could have invaded him for. So friend, you are completely wrong when you say this war is illegal.

It's not what Iran has done as a 'nuakable' offense, it is what Iran intends to do with their nuclear capabilities (If they gain them) that will be a 'nukable' offense.


Oh and Naturality....You're right it's all the same area. Brittan just comes from the Latin name Brittania, and England comes from the Angol-Saxons.

Oh and I believe it would be a terrible idea to let Iran to develop any sort of nuclear device. Iran does not need nuclear weapons to protect them selves. Every other nation has not used nuclear weapons as a means of protection when invaded.

No-Absolutely not. This is an act of agression on Iran's part,they should be dealt with immediately and decisively before their manners get any worse.

It doesnt matter wether these British Marines belonged there-or didnt.

Britain can use diplomacy-Advise Iran they have 24 hours to return all of the men and equipment unscathed.

If Iran doesnt comply, they should launch simultaneous assaults-covert ops to kill military leaders and smart-bombing of military targets such as radar and communications, as well as their sub docks and sites where we know they are working to research and develop their nuke capabilities.

I agree with that in the sense that they are attacking us, and we are defending ourselves. I know the troops are defending themselves, but hell they aren't even allowed to do what they really could to really protect themselves. They are leashed. I'm not saying we are right to be over there, but if you are going to do it, do it right and quick. We're over there for the wrong reason, and doing it in the wrong way at our troops expense. All political. It's just shitty all the way around. IMO.

The Iranians were merely successful in kidnapping some UK troops this time.

They've tried very recently to kidnap US soldiers.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070323/23iran.htm

They had threatened to do this in retaliation for the capture of their intelligence agents inside Iraq a while back, and the capture of one of their generals in Turkey.

As the British government demanded the immediate release of 15 of its sailors whose boats were seized by Iranian naval vessels in the Persian Gulf on Friday, U.S. News has learned that this is not the first showdown that coalition forces have had with the Iranian military.

According to a U.S. Army report out of Iraq obtained by U.S. News, American troops, acting as advisers for Iraqi border guards, were recently surrounded and attacked by a larger unit of Iranian soldiers, well within the border of Iraq.

The report highlights the details: A platoon of Iranian soldiers on the Iraqi side of the border fired rocket-propelled grenades and used small arms against a joint patrol of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers east of Balad Ruz. Four Iraqi Army soldiers, one interpreter, and one Iraqi border policeman remain unaccounted for after the September incident in eastern Diyala, 75 miles east of Baghdad.

During a joint border patrol, both American and Iraqi soldiers saw two Iranian soldiers run from Iraq back across the Iranian border as they approached. The patrol then came upon a single Iranian soldier, on the Iraqi side of the border, who did not flee.

While the joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol was speaking with the soldier, according to the report, the patrol was "approached by a platoon-size element of Iranian soldiers." An Iranian border captain then told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that "if they tried to leave their location, the Iranians would fire upon them." During this conversation with the Iranian captain, Iranian forces began firing and continued when U.S. troops tried to withdraw.

Iraqi and American forces returned fire "to break contact and left the area to report the incident," the report noted. "The Iranian forces continued to fire indirect fire well into Iraq as Coalition Force soldiers withdrew; for reasons unknown at this time, the Iraqi Army forces remained behind."

No American soldiers were wounded in the incident.

It is possible that Iranians thought they were in Iranian territory, according to U.S. military officials. Such border confusions and disputes happen routinely.

In the British naval incident on Friday, Iran claimed it seized the vessels because they were in its territorial waters. U.S. military officials tell U.S. News that the Iranian forces very likely belong to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which tend to be far more aggressive than regular Iranian naval forces, which U.S. military officials routinely describe as "extremely professional."

Iranian and Iraqi forces continue to clash in Iraq. U.S. special operations forces have been tasked with nabbing Iranian members of the Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Brigade, the foreign operations arm of the Iranian military, which also supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

U.S. forces grabbed six Iranians with alleged ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil in January, reportedly using stun bombs, seizing computers, and taking down an Iranian flag from the raided building's roof. Iran said the building was a consulate and the men were diplomats–and continues to demand their release. One of Iraq's most powerful Shiite politicians condemned the raid, calling it an attack on Iraq's sovereignty.

American forces may soon be getting further insight into recent Iranian attacks. Earlier this month, a former Iranian deputy defense minister who once commanded the Revolutionary Guards–and is thought to have considerable knowledge of Iran's national security network–left the country and is said to be cooperating with western intelligence agencies, sharing information on links between Iran and Hezbollah in south Lebanon, for example. Iranian officials said the official, Ali Rez Asgari, was kidnapped by western agents.

Shortly afterward, Iran threatened to retaliate in Europe for the supposed kidnapping, what it claims to be the most recent in a series of abductions in the past three months. According to the British Sunday Times, in the Revolutionary Guards' weekly newspaper this week, a columnist believed to have close ties to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote: "We've got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks. Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis."

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

:)

Don't forget Saddam.

Of course.

It's not what Iran has done as a 'nuakable' offense, it is what Iran intends to do with their nuclear capabilities (If they gain them) that will be a 'nukable' offense.

...

Oh and I believe it would be a terrible idea to let Iran to develop any sort of nuclear device. Iran does not need nuclear weapons to protect them selves. Every other nation has not used nuclear weapons as a means of protection when invaded.

It's not about USING nuclear weapons. It's about using them as leverage. God forbid Iran being able to have more influence over their own affairs and their neighbors than us! Iran, under the current regime at least, would never use nuclear weapons. For one thing, the Iranian population would never tolerate it.

Aside from there not being much to go on when it comes to Iran developing a nuclear arsenal, I see no reason why some powers should be allowed nuclear arms (nevermind nuclear technology), and some not. Obviously it'd be preferrable of NOBODY had nuclear weapons, but this is just impossible.

No, they shouldnt.

I seriously doubt the hostages will come to any harm. The UK and Iran are playing games with each other.

It's not about USING nuclear weapons. It's about using them as leverage. God forbid Iran being able to have more influence over their own affairs and their neighbors than us! Iran, under the current regime at least, would never use nuclear weapons. For one thing, the Iranian population would never tolerate it.
Aside from there not being much to go on when it comes to Iran developing a nuclear arsenal, I see no reason why some powers should be allowed nuclear arms (nevermind nuclear technology), and some not. Obviously it'd be preferrable of NOBODY had nuclear weapons, but this is just impossible.

The same Iranian population that is kept in chains by the mullahs in Tehran?

They have no leverage with the government right now, so why would their opinion matter?

The same Iranian population that is kept in chains by the mullahs in Tehran?

They have no leverage with the government right now, so why would their opinion matter?
Shhh. A lot of people here think Iran is a fully functioning democracy.

They also believe the mullahs don't agree with Ahmadinejad (although they do)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/21/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html

The same Iranian population that is kept in chains by the mullahs in Tehran?

They have no leverage with the government right now, so why would their opinion matter?

I'm not so sure about that... From what I understand Ahmadinejad et al. were able to secure the presidency due to some exeptional circumstances. Large blocs of young voters boycotted the elections because of the lack of progress made, which meant less for the reformists, although there is the issue of the conservative clerics banning candidates... Regardless, I don't think Ahmadinejad will last through another election.

I know what you mean, but I honestly think that the deployment of nuclear weapons would be the 'straw that would break the camel's back', so to speak.

I'm not so sure about that... From what I understand Ahmadinejad et al. were able to secure the presidency due to some exeptional circumstances. Large blocs of young voters boycotted the elections because of the lack of progress made, which meant less for the reformists, although there is the issue of the conservative clerics banning candidates... Regardless, I don't think Ahmadinejad will last through another election.

I know what you mean, but I honestly think that the deployment of nuclear weapons would be the 'straw that would break the camel's back', so to speak.

The mullahs want the nukes, too.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/21/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html

It's not about USING nuclear weapons. It's about using them as leverage. God forbid Iran being able to have more influence over their own affairs and their neighbors than us! Iran, under the current regime at least, would never use nuclear weapons. For one thing, the Iranian population would never tolerate it.

Aside from there not being much to go on when it comes to Iran developing a nuclear arsenal, I see no reason why some powers should be allowed nuclear arms (nevermind nuclear technology), and some not. Obviously it'd be preferrable of NOBODY had nuclear weapons, but this is just impossible.
You're kidding right? Where have you been for the past couple of years? Firstly, the Iranian president, Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad, swore in his inaugural address that he would clear the nation of Israel from the face of the Earth. You don't think that's enough proof? Iran is a nation that's government actively supports terrorist organizations (e.g. Hezzbollah). In addition the country serves as a home to terrorist recruitment and training. You have to be absolutely insane to think that a country which actively endorses terrorism should have nuclear capabilities.

Oh and concerning the Iranian people, they probably wouldn't react in any way. For Christ sake over 100,000 Iran civilians participated in a massive human wave invasion in the Iran-Iraq war. What makes you think that they would oppose the usage of a nuclear device? Most of them could oppose it, but most likely would be too frightened to speak up about it.

The mullahs want the nukes, too.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/21/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html

Yep, they want nuclear technology. I agree. Also, the mullahs are no better, there's no doubt that, by and large, Iranians are an oppressed people.

Oh, I meant that the population wouldn't tolerate a NUCLEAR STRIKE ;p.

Shhh. A lot of people here think Iran is a fully functioning democracy.

They also believe the mullahs don't agree with Ahmadinejad (although they do)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/21/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html

Oh yeah, and the US democracy is a shining beacon for plurality...

Texans for a Republican Majority anyone?

Any Presidential hopeful needs about 20$M to even have a chance...

The US is hardly even a democracy, more like an elitist corporate state.

Oh yeah, and the US democracy is a shining beacon for plurality...

Texans for a Republican Majority anyone?

Any Presidential hopeful needs about 20$M to even have a chance...

The US is hardly even a democracy, more like an elitist corporate state.

Now you're changing the subject because you know you were pwned completely about what's going on in Iran.

Iran should nuke England.

Seconded, I say England should on top of that invade once Iranian forces are weakened due to blasts then take control of Iran. England took control of other foreign nations before in the past, let the good empire be reborn!

Oh yeah, and the US democracy is a shining beacon for plurality...

Texans for a Republican Majority anyone?

Any Presidential hopeful needs about 20$M to even have a chance...

The US is hardly even a democracy, more like an elitist corporate state.

Yeah you're right.

Guess what - WE'RE A FEDERAL REPUBLIC! Go take Political Science genius.

Now you're changing the subject because you know you were pwned completely about what's going on in Iran.

No, I am not saying they don't have problems, all countries do. I just think it's arrogant to think that forcing Western culture and ideas over a Muslim population will not cause tension. Sure Iran has it's problems, but it's sure better than what the US would have done to it if the Shah kept going, look at Iraq.

No, I am not saying they have problems, all countries do. I just think it's arrogant to think that forcing Western culture and ideas over a Muslim population. Sure Iran has it's problems, but it's sure better than what the US would have done to it if the Shah kept going, look at Iraq.

We're not forcing "Western culture" on Iran.

We're asking them to abide by a treaty they signed.

So is every other member of the UN Security Council.

The vote was unanimous, and not "because the US made them".

The US wasn't able to "make" anyone vote for the Iraq invasion - so why would it be any different now, as unpopular as Bush is overseas?

The reason they voted for more sanctions is because they ALSO see Iran as reneging on its treaty obligations, and acting in a belligerent manner - not just towards the US.

How would you Brits feel if an Iranian ship sailed into the mouth of the Thames without asking permission? Something tells me you'd probably be nervous, especially if thousands of Iranian soldiers were stationed a few miles away from you.

It is simply illogical to accuse Iran of anything when the imperial British navy still uses its remaining strength to impose their country's will overseas.

You're kidding right? Where have you been for the past couple of years? Firstly, the Iranian president, Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad, swore in his inaugural address that he would clear the nation of Israel from the face of the Earth. You don't think that's enough proof? Iran is a nation that's government actively supports terrorist organizations (e.g. Hezzbollah). In addition the country serves as a home to terrorist recruitment and training. You have to be absolutely insane to think that a country which actively endorses terrorism should have nuclear capabilities.

Oh and concerning the Iranian people, they probably wouldn't react in any way. For Christ sake over 100,000 Iran civilians participated in a massive human wave invasion in the Iran-Iraq war. What makes you think that they would oppose the usage of a nuclear device? Most of them could oppose it, but most likely would be too frightened to speak up about it.

Ahmadinejad was actually quoting Khomeini, who said something like; "the occupation regime of Jerusalem will be swept away". No 'wiping off the face of the Earth' was discussed.

Hezbollah is possibly the most debatable terrorist organization in the world right now. Their hospitals care for over 400,000 wounded Lebanese annualy, they grant free scholarships to students, and their post-war reconstruction efforts were dubbed, by an American journalist, more effective than the U.S.'s after hurricane Katrina. They're pretty much responsible for the entire infrastructure of southern Lebanon - everywhere that's been screwed over by the country's lack of funding (or being able to fund). The poor Lebanese Shi'a turn to Hezbollah to take care of them, to succeed where the government has failed, and they do a pretty damn good job. Them being responsible bombing a military barracks during a foreign occupation does not erase these facts.

Iranians are a patriotic people. Why would they want to be placed under Iraqi rule, where they'd probably be treated worse off than in their own country? Khomeini is bad, but look what happened to the Shi'a under Saddam. It was about defending their land and themselves - not about defending the regime.

No, I am not saying they have problems, all countries do. I just think it's arrogant to think that forcing Western culture and ideas over a Muslim population. Sure Iran has it's problems, but it's sure better than what the US would have done to it if the Shah kept going, look at Iraq.

If the Shah had remained in power, Iran may very well be First World by now. And after the Cold War ended, there would have been considerable pressure put on him to implement democratic reforms.

Yeah you're right.

Guess what - WE'RE A FEDERAL REPUBLIC! Go take Political Science genius.
wtf?

Hahaha, if the Shah was still in power he'd probably have executed everyone but himself by now!

How would you Brits feel if an Iranian ship sailed into the mouth of the Thames without asking permission? Something tells me you'd probably be nervous, especially if thousands of Iranian soldiers were stationed a few miles away from you.

It is simply illogical to accuse Iran of anything when the imperial British navy still uses its remaining strength to impose their country's will overseas.

This incident bears striking resemblance to one just recently where Iranian troops crossed into Iraq and tried to capture US forces.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070323/23iran.htm

In that incident, Iranians crossed the border, and threatened to kill anyone who didn't come back to Iran with them.

This sounds the same.

It is also fulfillment of a threat made by Iran - to capture and hold any US or UK forces they could catch, in order to get back their intelligence agents captured deep inside Iraq.

If the Shah had remained in power, Iran may very well be First World by now. And after the Cold War ended, there would have been considerable pressure put on him to implement democratic reforms.If the Shah had remained in power, Iran would now be owned by foreign companies.

Hahaha, if the Shah was still in power he'd probably have executed everyone but himself by now!
Indeed.

If the Shah had remained in power, Iran may very well be First World by now. And after the Cold War ended, there would have been considerable pressure put on him to implement democratic reforms.

Either that, or we would have done something like we did to Saddam.

Hahaha, if the Shah was still in power he'd probably have executed everyone but himself by now!

Yet another completely idiotic and unfounded exaggeration. Followed by...

If the Shah had remained in power, Iran would now be owned by foreign companies.

An equally spurious fallacy.

Ahmadinejad was actually quoting Khomeini, who said something like; "the occupation regime of Jerusalem will be swept away". No 'wiping off the face of the Earth' was discussed.

Hezbollah is possibly the most debatable terrorist organization in the world right now. Their hospitals care for over 400,000 wounded Lebanese annualy, they grant free scholarships to students, and their post-war reconstruction efforts were dubbed, by an American journalist, more effective than the U.S.'s after hurricane Katrina. They're pretty much responsible for the entire infrastructure of southern Lebanon - everywhere that's been screwed over by the country's lack of funding (or being able to fund). The poor Lebanese Shi'a turn to Hezbollah to take care of them, to succeed where the government has failed, and they do a pretty damn good job. Them being responsible bombing a military barracks during a foreign occupation does not erase these facts.

Iranians are a patriotic people. Why would they want to be placed under Iraqi rule, where they'd probably be treated worse off than in their own country? Khomeini is bad, but look what happened to the Shi'a under Saddam. It was about defending their land and themselves - not about defending the regime.

The Nazis also provided social services. That didn't exonorate them from the crimes they committed on humanity, and neither does it exonorate Hezbollah.

Remember when Iranians took our whole embassy hostage? Well, we got those people back, without having to invade.(well, we did try it, and it failed miserably)

There was an implied threat of force when Reagan took office. This is why the Iranians let them go back then. Carter was weak and they knew this.

No, I am not saying they have problems, all countries do. I just think it's arrogant to think that forcing Western culture and ideas over a Muslim population. Sure Iran has it's problems, but it's sure better than what the US would have done to it if the Shah kept going, look at Iraq.
Oh so we should just let the Iranians get there way? And turn a blind eye to whatever they do? Just allow them to slowly take over Iraq through insurgency, eventually taking total control (Giving them probably the largest reserve of oil fields). And we should just allow them to continue funding terrorism, sending weapons and supplies to Hezzbollah. Hell maybe one day they will even send a nuclear bomb to Hezzbollah, and guess where they will use it. Israel! So I suppose we should also turn a blind eye when an Iranian nuclear bomb kills millions of Jews in 5-10 years?


Iran has obviously shown that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE enough to have control of nuclear capabilities. Other countries with nuclear capabilities show self control, Iran does not show this in any fashion (As it actively supports terrorism, attempts to capture Coalition/Iraqi forces, and et cetera).

Yet another completely idiotic and unfounded exaggeration. Followed by...



An equally spurious fallacy.

Meh, I don't know man. The Shah was pretty much dependant on Western help to sustain his regime. I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot of pressure on him to let foreign companies in. I mean, that was the whole point with the overthrow of Mossadegh.

This incident bears striking resemblance to one just recently where Iranian troops crossed into Iraq and tried to capture US forces.

Hm, or where two of the world's most powerful nations invade and occupied a tiny, poor country without the consent of its populace. Or when the US imprisoned Iranian officials for no reason.

Meh, I don't know man. The Shah was pretty much dependant on Western help to sustain his regime. I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot of pressure on him to let foreign companies in. I mean, that was the whole point with the overthrow of Mossadegh.

Iran took at least 51% of the profit from oil revenue when the Shah was in power, IIRC.

Hm, or where two of the world's most powerful nations invade and occupied a tiny, poor country without the consent of its populace. Or when the US imprisoned Iranian officials for no reason.

The Iranian "officials" were acknowledged later by Iran to be military members of the Quds force, a military intelligence unit.

Going to say they were innocently 300 miles inside Iraq?

Going to say they were innocently 300 miles inside Iraq?

Uh, yes, as diplomatic officials. Remember how they were in the consulate?

Uh, yes, as diplomatic officials. Remember how they were in the consulate?

It wasn't officially a consulate. And Iran later acknowledged that they were not officials - they were members of the Iranian military.

It's even implicit in their current demands - send back our agents/military intel guys, and we'll send back the Brits.

Oh so we should just let the Iranians get there way? And turn a blind eye to whatever they do? Just allow them to slowly take over Iraq through insurgency, eventually taking total control (Giving them probably the largest reserve of oil fields). And we should just allow them to continue funding terrorism, sending weapons and supplies to Hezzbollah. Hell maybe one day they will even send a nuclear bomb to Hezzbollah, and guess where they will use it. Israel! So I suppose we should also turn a blind eye when an Iranian nuclear bomb kills millions of Jews in 5-10 years?


Iran has obviously shown that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE enough to have control of nuclear capabilities. Other countries with nuclear capabilities show self control, Iran does not show this in any fashion (As it actively supports terrorism, attempts to capture Coalition/Iraqi forces, and et cetera).

I'd be confident that Iranian politicians are just as motivated by realpolitik as nations like Great Britain and the United States. I don't think that they'd risk the destruction of the state and the deaths of millions of Iranians by launching a nuclear attack. This would sign their death warrant in more way than one.

Also, I doubt Israel would be a target for nuclear attacks. After all, one of the objectives would be the liberation of the Palestinian people, and leaving their homeland in a pile of rubble wouldn't be the best, or most popular way, to go about doing this ;/.

Oh so we should just let the Iranians get there way? And turn a blind eye to whatever they do? Just allow them to slowly take over Iraq through insurgency, eventually taking total control (Giving them probably the largest reserve of oil fields). And we should just allow them to continue funding terrorism, sending weapons and supplies to Hezzbollah. Hell maybe one day they will even send a nuclear bomb to Hezzbollah, and guess where they will use it. Israel! So I suppose we should also turn a blind eye when an Iranian nuclear bomb kills millions of Jews in 5-10 years?


Iran has obviously shown that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE enough to have control of nuclear capabilities. Other countries with nuclear capabilities show self control, Iran does not show this in any fashion (As it actively supports terrorism, attempts to capture Coalition/Iraqi forces, and et cetera).
As the only nuclear transgressor in human history, the US has little credibility on this issue.


"If we halt our nuclear programme it will cost us more than any sanctions"

Hesam, Tehran, Iran

I'd be confident that Iranian politicians are just as motivated by realpolitik as nations like Great Britain and the United States. I don't think that they'd risk the destruction of the state and the deaths of millions of Iranians by launching a nuclear attack. This would sign their death warrant in more way than one.

Also, I doubt Israel would be a target for nuclear attacks. After all, one of the objectives would be the liberation of the Palestinian people, and leaving their homeland in a pile of rubble wouldn't be the best, or most popular way, to go about doing this ;/.
Who says it has to be in the form of some nuclear strike? A low yield "suit case" nuclear device in Northern Israel would do it.

Oh and how can you say this for sure? Are you a terrorist? Do you have the radical mindset of a terrorist in any way? No you don't, so don't go off being so sure of what radical Islamics would and would not do.

The Nazis also provided social services. That didn't exonorate them from the crimes they committed on humanity, and neither does it exonorate Hezbollah.

Good point ;p. Still, I think paralleling the Nazis with Hezbollah is a bit of a stretch. It's true that Hezbollah has committed crimes against humanity, but largely in a reactionary manner against occupying states, rather than an ideological one. You're right though, this does not absolve them from these crimes. Nasrallah did mention that the purpose of the attacks on Israeli civillians was to hasten Israel's withdraw, and while I don't grant full legitimacy to this strategy, I think he was probably telling the truth.

As the only nuclear transgressor in human history, the US has little credibility on this issue.

The USA is the only country to have used nukes in warfare, and I think it's best to keep it that way.


I think what EveO meant is that based on Iran's recent actions, they are not trustworthy of nuclear technology. A premise that I agree with.

Some people might argue the same applies to the USA, but do you seriously think the US government is irrational enough to blackmail other countries with nuclear power, or to actually use them again?

There was an implied threat of force when Reagan took office. This is why the Iranians let them go back then. Carter was weak and they knew this.

Bull.

The UK lost the war in 1942. This it it's big chance to reverse that.

As the only nuclear transgressor in human history, the US has little credibility on this issue.
There was good reason for using the atomic bombs on Japan, and the United States has shown responsibility since then when concerning nuclear bombs. Whereas Iran has shown nothing that it would be responsible in any way, and could likely sell a nuclear weapon off to some terrorist organization.

Oh and AchillesLastStand, the USA did use it's nuclear arsenal as a leverage against the USSR during the early cold war. This was as Eisenhower began decreasing the size of the armed forces, which would leave us to rely more heavily on nuclear weapons.

Who says it has to be in the form of some nuclear strike? A low yield "suit case" nuclear device in Northern Israel would do it.

Oh and how can you say this for sure? Are you a terrorist? Do you have the radical mindset of a terrorist in any way? No you don't, so don't go off being so sure of what radical Islamics would and would not do.

Neither are you. Not all Islamists can be painted with the same brush. IMO it's dangerous go around generalizing and condemning people for what we think that they may, one day, do. Personally, I think you're being a little paranoid. Maybe, maybe not.

Just a little bit about Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty... NATO countries have a history of preventing Iran from obtaining the material it needs to develop a peaceful nuclear program, which is why it was forced to root around in the underground. To pro-actively prevent a fellow signatory to the NPT from obtaining this technology peacefully is a violation. Also, the U.S. practices a policy of 'nuclear sharing' which allows nuclear arms to be stored in nations that are NATO allies. Troops in say, Turkey, are being trained and provided with the technology which allows for the potential launch of these weapons - some of which are no doubt being pointed in Iran's direction. This is hotly debated, but could also be considered to be in violation of the NPT.

Good point ;p. Still, I think paralleling the Nazis with Hezbollah is a bit of a stretch. It's true that Hezbollah has committed crimes against humanity, but largely in a reactionary manner against occupying states, rather than an ideological one. You're right though, this does not absolve them from these crimes. Nasrallah did mention that the purpose of the attacks on Israeli civillians was to hasten Israel's withdraw, and while I don't grant full legitimacy to this strategy, I think he was probably telling the truth.

On the contrary, comparisons between Hezbollah and the Nazis are completely analagous. Let's examine how the similiar beliefs of these two groups, shall we?

The Nazis were hell-bent on destroying Jews. So is Hezbollah. Make no mistake-it's not about Zionists, it's about the Jews.

The Nazis thought that the Aryan race was superior to all others. Hezbollah think that Muslims, specifically Shiite Muslims are superior to all others.

The Nazis and Hezbollah both followed repressive ideologies solely devoted to blind obedience to said organization.

Hezbollah is at heart, a totalitarian organization, and thus has more similarites with the Nazis than differences.

Some people might argue the same applies to the USA, but do you seriously think the US government is irrational enough to blackmail other countries with nuclear power, or to actually use them again?

Yes I do.

There was good reason for using the atomic bombs on Japan, and the United States has shown responsibility since then when concerning nuclear bombs. Whereas Iran has shown nothing that it would be responsible in any way, and could likely sell a nuclear weapon off to some terrorist organization.

Oh and AchillesLastStand, the USA did use it's nuclear arsenal as a leverage against the USSR during the early cold war. This was as Eisenhower began decreasing the size of the armed forces, which would leave us to rely more heavily on nuclear weapons.

I was referring to recent history. Particularly post-Cold War history. For example, as far as I know, Clinton didn't go about brandishing the nuclear card to make North Korea concede its nuclear ambitions.

Should England Nuke Iran?
Sure! As long as it has nothing to do with North America, go for it.

Iran should nuke England.
And why is that?

Hezbollah is at heart, a totalitarian organization, and thus has more similarites with the Nazis than differences.
The Nazis even sympathise with them at times.

Yes I do.

Alright then. At least you're honest.

Just out of curiousity, how have done that? Did we threaten to nuke Cuba unless Castro capitulated? Did we threaten to nuke North Korea unless Kim Jung Il gave up the reins of power? Did we threaten Saddam with nukes? Did we threaten the EU with nukes unless they lowered their tarriff on American agricultural products?

We use the prowess of our conventional military forces, and we can debate the merits of this, but it is far more sane and less reckless than using nukes, which will be Iran's best option if it gets them. The Iranian military is no wimp outfit, but it doesn't match up to the US armed forces, or to Israel's IDF. Even the Kurdish PeshMergas could put up a fight with them. Nukes would be their best resort, and they know it.

AchillesLastStand, if this holocaust actually happened, where did it happen? Europe. So in that case it's solution must exist in Europe, not in Palestine. What part did today's youth take in WWII? None. Why must the Palestinians suffer for a perceived wrong done before their lifetimes? Because that is the pretext the cruel Zionist regime uses to 'justify' the abject oppression of the Palestinians.

On the contrary, comparisons between Hezbollah and the Nazis are completely analagous. Let's examine how the similiar beliefs of these two groups, shall we?

The Nazis were hell-bent on destroying Jews. So is Hezbollah. Make no mistake-it's not about Zionists, it's about the Jews.

The Nazis thought that the Aryan race was superior to all others. Hezbollah think that Muslims, specifically Shiite Muslims are superior to all others.

The Nazis and Hezbollah both followed repressive ideologies solely devoted to blind obedience to said organization.

Hezbollah is at heart, a totalitarian organization, and thus has more similarites with the Nazis than differences.

I think it's mistake to portray Hezbollah as a kind of homogenous entity though. Although there does exist a high level of ideological commitment to the party amongst it's members, I do think that there's a plurality of views within the leadership, not to mention the constituents. As you say, there's definitely bound to be factions that harbour so much hostility towards Israel that all of the Jews become legitimated as targets. There's also bound to be elements which draw a clear distinction between Zionism and 'Jews' as a whole. There's also people, non-Muslims amongst them, to whom Hezbollah represents a helping hand, and 'murdering Jews' just isn't something that's on the agenda. We constantly see the leadership attempting to appeal to ALL of these groups and more - if it ceased to do so and became too focused on on a single aspect, it's popular support would fall out from under it.

I do, however, agree with you that if Hezbollah were to set up a state, it would be authoritarian in nature. The militant culture of 'martyrdom' amongst potential fighters is what I find most disconcerting ;/.

They're a paradox, hard to figure out.

Neither are you. Not all Islamists can be painted with the same brush. IMO it's dangerous go around generalizing and condemning people for what we think that they may, one day, do. Personally, I think you're being a little paranoid. Maybe, maybe not.

Just a little bit about Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty... NATO countries have a history of preventing Iran from obtaining the material it needs to develop a peaceful nuclear program, which is why it was forced to root around in the underground. To pro-actively prevent a fellow signatory to the NPT from obtaining this technology peacefully is a violation. Also, the U.S. practices a policy of 'nuclear sharing' which allows nuclear arms to be stored in nations that are NATO allies. Troops in say, Turkey, are being trained and provided with the technology which allows for the potential launch of these weapons - some of which are no doubt being pointed in Iran's direction. This is hotly debated, but could also be considered to be in violation of the NPT.
Did I ever classify all terrorist under one detailed category? Not once, I used Terrorism as a broader statement.

Oh Thanks for the facts that are obvious to the world... Yes the Iranians may have signed the NPT, but does it mean they will actually abide by it? North Korea, for example, signed the treaty in 1985 and look where they are now. Not to long ago they detonated their own nuclear device, effectively violating the NPT. The NPT will not stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Therefore, as all humans have good and evil to them, the Iraians will without a doubt pursue nuclear weapons in addition to their peaceful means for nuclear technology.

No one should nuke anyone, you guys are making a Matterhorn out of a molehill.

AchillesLastStand, if this holocaust actually happened, where did it happen? Europe. So in that case it's solution must exist in Europe, not in Palestine. What part did today's youth take in WWII? None. Why must the Palestinians suffer for a perceived wrong done before their lifetimes? Because that is the pretext the cruel Zionist regime uses to 'justify' the abject oppression of the Palestinians.

If this Holocaust actually happened?

I've had to demolish this holocaust-happened-in-europe-so-jews-belong-in-europe argument more times than I can count. But here we go again.

Zionism, the ideology that there must be a Jewish state, Zion, in the middle east started in 1896, long before the Holocaust. Jews had settled the area of present-day Israel in large numbers since the 19th century Russian pogroms.

Why Israel? Because Jews have maintained a constant presence there for over 3700 years, the Jewish calendar is based on the climates of Israel, and the Jewish God Abraham promised Israel to Jews. So you have a religous tradition thousands-years old going back to Israel.

During World War 2, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a Palestinian leader, was actively involved in the Nazi war effort, and he recruited Bosnian Serbs to fight in SS units. He even met with Hitler. The Palestinians have blood on their hands.

Speaking of Palestinian suffering, they are their own worst enemies. They have refused every peace offer that has been offerred to them. They are not interested in compromise. They want it all.

Iran has obviously shown that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE enough to have control of nuclear capabilities. only one country has shown that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE with nukes.

only one.

You're kidding right? Where have you been for the past couple of years? Firstly, the Iranian president, Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad, swore in his inaugural address that he would clear the nation of Israel from the face of the Earth. You don't think that's enough proof? Iran is a nation that's government actively supports terrorist organizations (e.g. Hezzbollah). In addition the country serves as a home to terrorist recruitment and training. You have to be absolutely insane to think that a country which actively endorses terrorism should have nuclear capabilities.

Oh and concerning the Iranian people, they probably wouldn't react in any way. For Christ sake over 100,000 Iran civilians participated in a massive human wave invasion in the Iran-Iraq war. What makes you think that they would oppose the usage of a nuclear device? Most of them could oppose it, but most likely would be too frightened to speak up about it.

Actually, that was a deliberate mistranslation. What he actually said was, to quote the Buffalo BEAST: "despite having been quoted as saying “Israel must be wiped off the map” by every man, woman and child in the United States over the past year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a frequent victim of deliberate mistranslation, never actually said that. A correct translation, according to many native Farsi speakers, goes something like, “The regime occupying Israel must vanish from the pages of history,” and was a direct quotation of Ayatollah Khomeini."

I was referring to recent history. Particularly post-Cold War history. For example, as far as I know, Clinton didn't go about brandishing the nuclear card to make North Korea concede its nuclear ambitions.
Then you must be more evident in your post if you expect people to think you're talking about modern times.

Then the men who did the hounding deserve death or to spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

And yet you see no foul with the Shah's regime who employed those men....I smell a hypocrite.

comparisons between Hezbollah and the Nazis are completely analagous. I 95% agree..

comparisons between Hezbollah and the Nazis are completely anal
agous.

Did I ever classify all terrorist under one detailed category? Not once, I used Terrorism as a broader statement.

Oh Thanks for the facts that are obvious to the world... Yes the Iranians may have signed the NPT, but does it mean they will actually abide by it? North Korea, for example, signed the treaty in 1985 and look where they are now. Not to long ago they detonated their own nuclear device, effectively violating the NPT. The NPT will not stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. Therefore, as all humans have good and evil to them, the Iraians will without a doubt pursue nuclear weapons in addition to their peaceful means for nuclear technology.

Easy buddy ;p. It's cool! I wasn't necessarily directing those 'obvious facts' about the world at you, I was just throwing it out there for the sake of conversation, I thought it'd be a good contribution.

I'm not so sure about your 'good/evil' arguement. It's a bit circular ;o.

You're right about North Korea though. But I think that we need to take into consideration that North Korea is a completely different kind of nation than Iran with regards to the ideological make-up of its citizenry, what they would find acceptable, what they would not, etc.

Meh, I just think that it's pure hypocrisy that we can arm ourselves to the brim with nuclear weaponry, while denying others the ability to do so under the pretext of a hazard to safety. At least call it what it is - securing the region's resources (and therefore our power) for us, and keeping them away from the local powers.

It would be a different issue if no countries in the world were in possession of nuclear weapons, and indeed we knew for sure that Iran was working towards a nuclear arsenal.

I think it's mistake to portray Hezbollah as a kind of homogenous entity though. Although there does exist a high level of ideological commitment to the party amongst it's members, I do think that there's a plurality of views within the leadership, not to mention the constituents. As you say, there's definitely bound to be factions that harbour so much hostility towards Israel that all of the Jews become legitimated as targets. There's also bound to be elements which draw a clear distinction between Zionism and 'Jews' as a whole. There's also people, non-Muslims amongst them, to whom Hezbollah represents a helping hand, and 'murdering Jews' just isn't something that's on the agenda. We constantly see the leadership attempting to appeal to ALL of these groups and more - if it ceased to do so and became too focused on on a single aspect, it's popular support would fall out from under it.

I do, however, agree with you that if Hezbollah were to set up a state, it would be authoritarian in nature. The militant culture of 'martyrdom' amongst potential fighters is what I find most disconcerting ;/.

They're a paradox, hard to figure out.

Dksustan, per usual, you have offered an insightful comment worthy of mulling over.

It seems we disagree on whether Hezbollah is completely committed to killing Jews, or whether they are just mostly resistance fighters. I think that the best way to gauge any organization is to take heed of what it's leaders say. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah is on public record as a Holocaust denier, and he has made many specifically anti-Jewish statements. I highly suggest you to read this article:

http://www.nysun.com/article/36717?page_no=2

It gives an overview of the anti-Semitism of Hezbollah and their Nazi tactics.

Dksustan, per usual, you have offered an insightful comment worthy of mulling over.

It seems we disagree on whether Hezbollah is completely committed to killing Jews, or whether they are just mostly resistance fighters. I think that the best way to gauge any organization is to take heed of what it's leaders say. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah is on public record as a Holocaust denier, and he has made many specifically anti-Jewish statements. I highly suggest you to read this article:

http://www.nysun.com/article/36717?page_no=2

It gives an overview of the anti-Semitism of Hezbollah and their Nazi tactics.

Resistance movements have a tendency to demonize their opponents. The White movement used anti-semitic sentiment to stoke hatred towards the Bolsheviks, for example. Not passing any judgments here, just sayin'...

Dksustan, per usual, you have offered an insightful comment worthy of mulling over.

It seems we disagree on whether Hezbollah is completely committed to killing Jews, or whether they are just mostly resistance fighters. I think that the best way to gauge any organization is to take heed of what it's leaders say. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah is on public record as a Holocaust denier, and he has made many specifically anti-Jewish statements. I highly suggest you to read this article:

http://www.nysun.com/article/36717?page_no=2

It gives an overview of the anti-Semitism of Hezbollah and their Nazi tactics.

Thanks, at least we're keeping it civil ;p.

I agree, I've heard a bunch of his speeches where he's gone on record questioning the scale of the holocaust and such. And honestly, I do think it's deplorable. It's historical fact for one thing, and it does NOTHING to help his cause for another. Ridiculous all-round ;/. I do however, know that there's also been a bunch of mis-quotes and fabricated citations also aimed at discrediting the organization.

One thing's for sure - there's a LOT of mixed messages coming out of the organization. I tend to think that it's political, and indeed necessary in order to maintain their broad support base - if they tended towrds being TOO EXTREME or TOO SOFT, I think they'd lose a lot of their clout.

I mean, awhile ago I read that, on their website, there was an explicit 'disclaimer' maintaining that 'not all Jews are Zionists', or something to that end. Nasrallah's also been quotes as expressing the need for inter-faith and inter-national co-operation to achieve his ends. But this moderacy is definitely tempered by his more 'extreme' verbal assaults ;/. I've read up on both sides of the story and yet I still find it hard to draw a definitive conclusion about the organization ;/.

Personally, I've read quite a bit on them and I'm actually in the middle of writing a 15 page research paper for a class ;p. I'll check out your article in a bit, thanks.

Resistance movements have a tendency to demonize their opponents. The White movement used anti-semitic sentiment to stoke hatred towards the Bolsheviks, for example.

I didn't know about the White-Bolshevik thing, thanks for pointing that out.

At any rate, I don't think that it's acceptable to spread lies about one's opponents. Any group or individual that regularly engages in this practice has critical flaws themselves, and may even be worse than their opponent.

There are a lot of people on this forum who have advocated the need for Iran to develop its own independent Nuclear Deterrent in order to protect itself against hostile acts against another nation.

Well here we are in reverse. Iran, had possibly committed an act of war against the UK. I would have been more than prepared to accept that the illegal capture of UK servicemen had been no more than a tactical mistake except for the fact that they have now been removed to from the combat area to Tehran, making them effectively hostages to Iran's wider foreign policy.

Now, since many people think that Iran should have an independent nuclear capability to prevent exactly this type of thing happening to them, my question is, should the UK exercise it's capability at this point because the shoe is on the other foot.

Poll to come.

Your poll has no "Yes" option.

Nuke Tehran tomorrow, come back to me on Monday, and we can discuss foriegn policy again.

Sure what have you got to lose :rolleyes:

seriously the UK needs to do something, but NOOKS are a bit extreme

only one country has shown that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE with nukes.

only one.

Sorry slick,

It was a declared war between two nations. Nobody said nukes couldn't be used back then. Never mind the fact, the fire raids killed way more people.....

Sure what have you got to lose :rolleyes:

seriously the UK needs to do something, but NOOKS are a bit extreme

Ok, so let's say we (or the UK) drop a tactical nuke on Tehran. Blast radius...3-5 miles, one million deaths instantly, another two million over the next few years due to radiation poisoning. (Tehran is one of the largest cities in the Mid East...at some 7-odd million people). We'd nail the Ayatollah, all the radical mullahs and nutjobs, the entire hardline leadership, and most importantly the source of funding and supplies for insurgents and terrorists across the world. (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, etc...) We'd stop their plans to get nukes of their own, since they would probably die with Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah.

Although I don't "support" the war in Iraq (do not confuse this with not supporting the troops - I fully support them and will stand either behind them or in front of them), I can see the immediate benefits when the insurgency shrivels up. Oil prices would spike - briefly - but would moderate over time as Iraqi oil comes on-line, which it would with insurgent attacks winding down and its offsetting whatever we'd lose from Iran.

Russia and the EU might get pissy, but I doubt that Putin's that oinkheaded to butt heads with the UK/US (whoever did the nuking) considering the fact that his economy's propped up on oil revenues and Western investment.

Net result...we've killed half the world's troublemakers in one fell swoop. Not a bad plan, if you ask me.

As a man who spent four years in Iraq, I have to agree with Lame Bums. We really need to step up what we're doing in the Middle East. The entire place has been a hot bed of violence for the past 2000+ years. And it really will continue unless something drastic is done.

I divert quite a bit of time to reading about the Middle East and the different groups around, etc...

There's so much coverage of the region that sometimes I forget about the entire African continent. There's been atrocious things going on there for decades, but unfortunately the Middle East steals its thunder. There's no doubt that the ME is a huge conflict area, and very interesting, but some of the atrocities going on in Africa are just insane (not to belittle the suffering of the people in the ME).

Sadly, I know very little about anything to do with Africa, save the usual suspects - Egypt, Somalia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, the Congo, etc. Everything else is practically invisible.

I'm not a huge fan of Thomas Friedman's work, but I did enjoy From Beirut to Jerusalem. He claimed that we viewed the Middle East through the lens of what he called, 'the biblical superstory'. I think he's right ;/.

Sorry slick,

It was a declared war between two nations. if anyone ever uses nukes again.. I (and most of the world) will consider it an automatic declaration of war.

So if there is nukes.. there is War.(unless its a nuclear test)
Nukes cannot be used on a peaceful environment.
Nukes can be used on a war environment.


Nobody said nukes couldn't be used back then. :rolleyes: Nobody has said nukes couldn't be used tomorrow. (Sunday)

So if there is nukes.. there is War.(unless its a nuclear test

are you in the least bit concerned about nuclear testing in PRK? are you?

because telling the world that you will end your uranium enrichment then, years later, ramping it up again, testing new ICBMs and nuclear warheads seems like a declaration of "we dont give a shit about the world thinks even though almost 50% of our populous lives in poverty."

*sighs*

if anyone ever uses nukes again.. I (and most of the world) will consider it an automatic declaration of war.


We don't have wars anymore. Police actions, etc. When was the last declared war slick?


So if there is nukes.. there is War.(unless its a nuclear test)
Nukes cannot be used on a peaceful environment.
Nukes can be used on a war environment.

And yet they were not used in Korea or Viet Nam. The Soviets didn't use them in Afghanistan....

Just because you have them; doesn't mean carte blanche use of them.



:rolleyes: Nobody has said nukes couldn't be used tomorrow. (Sunday)

:rolleyes: Wow we had treaties in the 40's slick?

"we dont give a shit about the world thinks ...what is your country again?

sounds familiar ;)

*sighs*



We don't have wars anymore. Police actions, etc. When was the last declared war slick?


And yet they were not used in Korea or Viet Nam. The Soviets didn't use them in Afghanistan....Let me translate my previous post..

If we ever use nukes.. (God I hope It never happens again)
it only in 2 possible scenarios:

#1 We are are already at war
#2 by using the nukes.. we are in fact declaring War.

In another words
You said "We used Nukes because it was War"..
and I am calling you "silly" (of course it was a War).

Sorry slick,

It was a declared war between two nations.

:rolleyes: Wow we had treaties in the 40's slick?hmm.
you are digging yourself into a hole.

hmm.
you are digging yourself into a hole.

Try to dodge all you want slick. You said only one nation ever used nukes irresponsibly. You were called on it as said it was a declared war.

what is your country again?

sounds familiar ;)

Then, it follows, if you are so adamantly opposed to the foreign policies of the United States, you are equally as opposed to the foreign policy of the PRK?

Or is it the fact that they are a 3rd-world country (society-wise) make it okay?

Let me translate my previous post..

If we ever use nukes.. (God I hope It never happens again)
it only in 2 possible scenarios:

#1 We are are already at war
#2 by using the nukes.. we are in fact declaring War.

So attacking a nation without a nuke isn't declaring war?


In another words
You said "We used Nukes because it was War"..
and I am calling you "silly" (of course it was a War).

And yet no nukes were used in Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan so your point is not valid.

theres no yes option in that poll

it should be something lie,

yes- lets grant all those Iraninans their forty virgins, and what not.

and may not another living thing exsist there for 5000 years

Wow. That is lol.

is it the fact that they are a 3rd-world country (society-wise) make it okay?being the Gov of a 3rd-world country is not a license to nuke other Countries.

Then, it follows, if you are so adamantly opposed to the foreign policies of the United States, you are equally as opposed to the foreign policy of the PRK?as stupid/incompetent as our "Dear Leader" is.. I think their "Dear Leader" is pretty incompetent too.. but I am not sure.

I am opposed to any Gov.. who uses nukes against other Countries.

Wow. That is lol.yeah.. I LOLed too..
"yes- lets grant all those Iraninans their forty virgins, and what not."

priceless :D

I have carefully looked through the poll options but I can't find anything sounding like "Yea, give Ahmadinejad the nuclear bomb he wants so much...drop it on his head!"
Maybe the creator of this poll is somewhat pro-Iran or anti-UK?!

snip.(*like running the Wagons, in circles*)I give up.
I am a tired Indian today.

You said only one nation ever used nukes irresponsibly. You were called on it as said it was a declared war.of course it was War.
You do not expect a nuke to be dropped on Japan (twice) by mistake (in peacetime).. do you?

we nuked 2 Cities.. you saying "but we declared War first" does not make it ok.

of course it was War.
You do not expect a nuke to be dropped on Japan (twice) by mistake (in peacetime).. do you?

we nuked 2 Cities.. you saying "but we declared War first" does not make it ok.



So, the US was irresponsible with two nukes and was responsible with the fire raids?

:D So what do you think war is about?

:D So what do you think war is about?
War is about Patriotism.
War is about Nationalism.
War used to be about religion (less so today).

War is about submission.
War is about US forcing our Will (on their throats) or viceversa.

for some people.. War is a business.

Her'e all the comments from BBC's Have Your Say. Not the selected ones, but the top 6:

48 hours to release our troops, or Natanz and other sites reach 10,000 degrees in 3 seconds.

Iran wants bombs... Lets send them to them...

Lets "decommission" trident over Terhan, and get both issues out of our news.

We should retaliate in the stronest terms. They took Brits instead of Americans as they know we are a soft touch. What was our warship doing it should have blasted the Iranian boats out of the water.

i would give iran 36 hours or it will be a declaration of war plain and simple.

The Iranians have committed an illegal act in caturing our sailors, end of story. We tell them diplomatically and in no uncertain terms, GIVE THEM BACK. If they do not, them we take them back by force.

I fear for society.

England is Britain, Britain is England. If not, explain the real difference when it comes to WAR.

Every time someone says England when they mean Britain they piss off a Scot or Welshman. Every time a Scot or Welshman gets pissed off they get pushed closer and closer into voting for separatist parties.

If those parties got any significant majority, which is unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibility, then my country (Britain) could cease to be. So get your terms right!

Every time someone says England when they mean Britain they piss off a Scot or Welshman. Every time a Scot or Welshman gets pissed off they get pushed closer and closer into voting for separatist parties.

If those parties got any significant majority, which is unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibility, then my country (Britain) could cease to be. So get your terms right!
QFT.

There are a lot of people on this forum who have advocated the need for Iran to develop its own independent Nuclear Deterrent in order to protect itself against hostile acts against another nation.

Well here we are in reverse. Iran, had possibly committed an act of war against the UK. I would have been more than prepared to accept that the illegal capture of UK servicemen had been no more than a tactical mistake except for the fact that they have now been removed to from the combat area to Tehran, making them effectively hostages to Iran's wider foreign policy.

Now, since many people think that Iran should have an independent nuclear capability to prevent exactly this type of thing happening to them, my question is, should the UK exercise it's capability at this point because the shoe is on the other foot.

Poll to come.

...you're poll is flawed...there is no "yes, nuke'em good" option. Now, I'm not saying it would be a popular option, but I am saying it should be on there for the simple fact that you're asking for our opinion...

I think you mean 'Should the UK nuke Iran?', not England. England and the UK/Britain are two different things, although for some reason many seem to think they're the same. Take it from me, as a Brit, they aren't. You're forgetting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland when you say 'England' instead of 'UK/Britain'

I think the easiest way for Americans to look at it is to think of England as the rough equivalent of a single US State. Therefore, referring to the United Kingdom as 'England' is like referring to the entire United States as 'California', 'Alaska', 'Washington', 'Alabama' or any other single state. It's clearly not, since that excludes the 49 other states that are part of the United States. Saying 'England' excludes the three other nations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) which make up the United Kingdom. So now you have no excuse to make this mistake again! :p

Anyway, back on topic. No, I don't think this situation calls for the use of nuclear weapons - they should only be used in response to a direct attack on UK territory.

Jokes aside, I think that using nuclear weapons are only acceptable in the extreme case. If Iran used them on....*glances at Grey*...the place in question, I would fully support said place nuking the crap out Iran in self-defense. These aren't regular missiles we're talking about, these are freakin' nukes man, do whatever you have to do to get out of that situation while you still can.

I think you mean 'Should the UK nuke Iran?', not England. England and the UK/Britain are two different things, although for some reason many seem to think they're the same. Take it from me, as a Brit, they aren't. You're forgetting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland when you say 'England' instead of 'UK/Britain'

I think the easiest way for Americans to look at it is to think of England as the rough equivalent of a single US State. Therefore, referring to the United Kingdom as 'England' is like referring to the entire United States as 'California', 'Alaska', 'Washington', 'Alabama' or any other single state. It's clearly not, since that excludes the 49 other states that are part of the United States. Saying 'England' excludes the three other nations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) which make up the United Kingdom. So now you have no excuse to make this mistake again! :p

Anyway, back on topic. No, I don't think this situation calls for the use of nuclear weapons - they should only be used in response to a direct attack on UK territory.


Ah, that clears things up for me, thank you Farrfin.

Someone already beat me to it.

Rant over.

Just to clarify:


Great Britain = The island of England, Wales and Scotland

UK = Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Ah, that clears things up for me, thank you Farrfin.

My pleasure, glad it helped :)

Iran should nuke England.

Iran doesn't have any nukes....yet. And nobody should use them anyway.

Also, England is not a country, it is part of The United Kingdom along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. At least if you are going to discuss a country's actions and possible reactions, call it by its proper name.

(Random side note, there's no "yes" option on that poll, hardly comprehensive :P, but don't worry though, i would say no anyways, just making a point!)

Just to clarify:


Great Britain = The island of England, Wales and Scotland

UK = Great Britain and Northern Ireland

oh and all the random little places that want to remain part of the UK like Bermuda, Gibraltar, Pitcairn, the Falkland Islands and the scilly isles etc are technically the UK.

Wow, it's nice to see all us Brits logging on this morning and moaning about what people call our country.:p

:D Well i need a good rant and a cup of tea to make it worthwhile getting out of bed in the mornings.

oh and all the random little places that want to remain part of the UK like Bermuda, Gibraltar, Pitcairn, the Falkland Islands and the scilly isles etc are technically the UK.
Well, to be pedantic, the Islands of Scilly are a UK unitary authority, and part of the UK, but the rest are self governing dependencies of the UK.

I hate it SO much when people call the U.K. 'England', or vice versa. The two words are not interchangeable and are two completely different things! It would be like me calling California the U.S.A! England is just one region of the U.K.

In reply to the matter at hand, the U.K should detonate a thermonuclear warhead just off the Iranian coast. Nothing says 'we mean business' like a miniature sun appearing off their coastline. Joke btw.

Hahaha!

Hey! Whre's the 'yes' option?

How the hell is anyone surprised Iran is trying to get nukes? Think about this. We are in Iraq. We are in Afghanistan. Both of these are next to Iran. We have said we don't like Iran.


What would you do?

What would you do?I would do what Korea did,
I would kiss the NPT good bye...

Ok, so let's say we (or the UK) drop a tactical nuke on Tehran. Blast radius...3-5 miles, one million deaths instantly, another two million over the next few years due to radiation poisoning. (Tehran is one of the largest cities in the Mid East...at some 7-odd million people). We'd nail the Ayatollah, all the radical mullahs and nutjobs, the entire hardline leadership, and most importantly the source of funding and supplies for insurgents and terrorists across the world. (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, etc...) We'd stop their plans to get nukes of their own, since they would probably die with Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah.

Although I don't "support" the war in Iraq (do not confuse this with not supporting the troops - I fully support them and will stand either behind them or in front of them), I can see the immediate benefits when the insurgency shrivels up. Oil prices would spike - briefly - but would moderate over time as Iraqi oil comes on-line, which it would with insurgent attacks winding down and its offsetting whatever we'd lose from Iran.

Russia and the EU might get pissy, but I doubt that Putin's that oinkheaded to butt heads with the UK/US (whoever did the nuking) considering the fact that his economy's propped up on oil revenues and Western investment.

Net result...we've killed half the world's troublemakers in one fell swoop. Not a bad plan, if you ask me.


You seem to be forgetting something very important. You said yourself that millions of people would die. These people are not evil. They are not just a statistic. They are people. Nuking Tehran would kill the Ayatollah and the leaders of Iran... but it would also kill my grandparents. You are advocating the murder of millions of people. You sir, are a bastard, and an example of the lowest type of human imaginable. I just thank God that you have no power whatsoever.

Remember when Iranians took our whole embassy hostage? Well, we got those people back, without having to invade.(well, we did try it, and it failed miserably)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2000/iranian_embassy_siege/intro.stm

yes- lets grant all those Iraninans their forty virgins, and what not.


I call that a slow Tuesday.

You seem to be forgetting something very important. You said yourself that millions of people would die. These people are not evil. They are not just a statistic. They are people. Nuking Tehran would kill the Ayatollah and the leaders of Iran... but it would also kill my grandparents. You are advocating the murder of millions of people. You sir, are a bastard, and an example of the lowest type of human imaginable. I just thank God that you have no power whatsoever.

I believe the argument is, that the number of deaths will be considerably higher if you don't nuke iran. (I don't support the nuking of Iran btw)

"British Isles" (outdated) = United Kingdom + Republic of Ireland
United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland = what its name says
Great Britain = England + Scotland + Wales

England is the bit in green here (http://www.omnidreams.net/images/destinazioni/mappe/map_england.gif). The bits in grey on the same island are Wales & Scotland: they're part of Britain, but are not part of England.

To make it very simple: England is one of the four countries of the UK. It is not the whole of the UK.


I know .. I was drinking and being a butt.

How the hell is anyone surprised Iran is trying to get nukes? Think about this. We are in Iraq. We are in Afghanistan. Both of these are next to Iran. We have said we don't like Iran.


What would you do?

Try to make nice. It's cheaper and in the long term it's profitable.

How the hell is anyone surprised Iran is trying to get nukes? Think about this. We are in Iraq. We are in Afghanistan. Both of these are next to Iran. We have said we don't like Iran.


What would you do?

It could become a functioning, un-backwards non corrupt government, or at least not advocate wiping out other countries etc...

i think w shud .. becos i'm sick and twisted and it wud be funny :D . however i do not see a yes option on the poll!!!!! how can this be .. this isn't a poll .. it's a .. erm ... i dunno .... an unpoll :D

i think w shud .. becos i'm sick and twisted and it wud be funny :D . however i do not see a yes option on the poll!!!!! how can this be .. this isn't a poll .. it's a .. erm ... i dunno .... an unpoll :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v409/WareWolf/English_Mother_Do_You_Speak_I.jpg

There are a lot of people on this forum who have advocated the need for Iran to develop its own independent Nuclear Deterrent in order to protect itself against hostile acts against another nation.


Really? There are actually people who support a nation in which raped women get stoned to death, among countless other things, getting nukes? What a freak show...

I believe the argument is, that the number of deaths will be considerably higher if you don't nuke iran. nukes saves lives.

where did I hear that before ??

I would love for England to nuke/invade Iran. I do not like the idea of Iran having power while Iraq is weak, and I would like to not have the US to invade Iran.

Iran should nuke England.

They should nuke each other so that the US can conquer both with little or no resistance :)

They should nuke each other so that the US can conquer both with little or no resistance :)

If we can work in another tax break, then its an excellent plan.

If we can work in another tax break, then its an excellent plan.

We will finally be able to get back at those dirty Bertish for a hundred years of oppression... 230 years later.

We will finally be able to get back at those dirty Bertish for a hundred years of oppression... 230 years later.

All seriousness aside, I do not think its good policy to leave Iraq seriously crippled while Iran is not. But I also know that if the US tries to invade Iran, all hell will break loose.

If only we could bring back Mr. Hussein and restore that nice evil power balance.

this is nothing. 15 individuals against the lives of millions of innocent people who have nothing to do with this, and in Tehran, no particularl love for the regieme?

where they are drinking in basements and the government translators admit to wanting the Mullahs end?

yeah, plus, it would be the end of Israel and several city blocks in London, New York and Washington.

I don't like nukes in the least, but 15 individual lives?, anyone contemplating it should fuck right off and die

this is nothing. 15 individuals against the lives of millions of innocent people who have nothing to do with this, and in Tehran, no particularl love for the regieme?

where they are drinking in basements and the government translators admit to wanting the Mullahs end?

yeah, plus, it would be the end of Israel and several city blocks in London, New York and Washington.

I don't like nukes in the least, but 15 individual lives?, anyone contemplating it should fuck right off and dieWelcome to the new Bushi World.
Where the lifes of Soldiers are more valuable than the lifes of Civileans (men,women and children)
Never mind the fact that the soldiers actually signed for war.

The United Kingdom, The United States, China, Egypt, Turkey, should all get together and come up with a plan to stablelize the Middle East cause enough is enough.

Nuke 'em till they glow. Glass Parking Lot. Massive Crater.

That'll teach them.

Nuke 'em till they glow. Glass Parking Lot. Massive Crater.

That'll teach them.

Then we can build a giant Wal-Mart!