News0 min ago
Blair/Bush sabre rattling on Iran intensifies...
The internet has been predicting a War with Iran for the last couple of years. Most people would think the very idea as madness while US/UK are bogged down in Afghanistan ans Iraq. However, anti-Iranian rhetoric from Bush and Blair seems to have got a lot more vociferous and frequent lately. Do you think the build-up/preparing us for the next leg of the war on the Axis of Evil has started?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Frankly, I would be astonished if either Bush or Blair entertained any thoughts of military action against Iran, particularly after the events of the last few years. It would be political suicide for either of them, I think.
Neither country has the resources or the political will to do it, after the events of the last few years.
Both countries would need to get the electorate onside if they were to attempt this, and I think that needs much more evidence of provocation and/or warmongering by Iran than has been currently shown.
Then there is the international angle... both countries tried assiduously to garner UN approval prior to the invasion of Iraq. They would find that even more difficult now, after recent events, and would require substantially more evidence of any alleged destabilising threat from Iran.
Neither country has the resources or the political will to do it, after the events of the last few years.
Both countries would need to get the electorate onside if they were to attempt this, and I think that needs much more evidence of provocation and/or warmongering by Iran than has been currently shown.
Then there is the international angle... both countries tried assiduously to garner UN approval prior to the invasion of Iraq. They would find that even more difficult now, after recent events, and would require substantially more evidence of any alleged destabilising threat from Iran.
LazyGun
Both men are going anyway, and I think the scenario is that Israel will get do the most of the action - Bombing the Nuclear facilities at Saghand,Yazd, Natanz; and Arak. Iran's Arab neighbours would not be happy with a US/Israel attack, but they are even more scared of the Iranians having Nuclear Weapons.
Both men are going anyway, and I think the scenario is that Israel will get do the most of the action - Bombing the Nuclear facilities at Saghand,Yazd, Natanz; and Arak. Iran's Arab neighbours would not be happy with a US/Israel attack, but they are even more scared of the Iranians having Nuclear Weapons.
Gromit, so in your scenario, Israelis would effectively kick things off with a preemptive air strike, and any retaliation from Iran would then be used as evidence of the need for a US led invasion?
It sounds plausible in theory, but I still think that the hugely unpopular events in Iraq and Afghanistan have soured the electorate in both the US and the UK against any more military adventures, at least in the short to medium term.
The fact that both Bush and Blair are going shortly would make that even more unlikely in my opinion, unless you are saying that they would make a move before they left office?
It sounds plausible in theory, but I still think that the hugely unpopular events in Iraq and Afghanistan have soured the electorate in both the US and the UK against any more military adventures, at least in the short to medium term.
The fact that both Bush and Blair are going shortly would make that even more unlikely in my opinion, unless you are saying that they would make a move before they left office?
I think this is big talk from yesterday's men. I don't think the electorates of the UK or the USA are willing to involve our forces in further actions in the Middle East and I agree it would finish off both men, politically.
Bush and Blair are fine examples of politicians not learning from history. Both of them under estimated the political nous of the Iranians/Persians, who were major players in the political shenanigans of this region even before Alexander the Great.
I'm not convinced the Israeli's will strike at Iran either. Iran learned from the pointless nature of human wave battle tactics in its war against Iraq and will be a more formidable and professional foe than it was during the period of religious fervour under the Ayatollah Khomeini. I would also think they are prepared for an Israeli attack and won't be caught the way the Egyptians were during one of its wars with Israel.
Bush and Blair are fine examples of politicians not learning from history. Both of them under estimated the political nous of the Iranians/Persians, who were major players in the political shenanigans of this region even before Alexander the Great.
I'm not convinced the Israeli's will strike at Iran either. Iran learned from the pointless nature of human wave battle tactics in its war against Iraq and will be a more formidable and professional foe than it was during the period of religious fervour under the Ayatollah Khomeini. I would also think they are prepared for an Israeli attack and won't be caught the way the Egyptians were during one of its wars with Israel.
Ahmadinejad WANTS to develop a nuclear weapon, and he WANTS to use it against Israel and the West.
What is done about it in terms of talks and diplomacy and possible sanctions will not alter these facts. The longer we talk talk talk the better for Ahmadinejad. As Binyamin Netanyahu said, "It is 1938, and Iran is Germany."
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/ujc.asp
What is done about it in terms of talks and diplomacy and possible sanctions will not alter these facts. The longer we talk talk talk the better for Ahmadinejad. As Binyamin Netanyahu said, "It is 1938, and Iran is Germany."
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/ujc.asp
Blairs's trip to the Middle East was more to gain support from arab nations to oppose Iran than to broker peace in the region. Because him and Bush are a dead flush they are trying to exert pressure on Iran by involving religious factions to do their work for them. A very dangerous game! And I thought he went there to talk peace?
A dangerous game indeed. The Jerusalem post has been running a special section on the Iranian threat for over a year now. It really is worth reading as we in the West are hardly awake as to the seriousness of the threat.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagenam e=JPost/Page/IndexParMult&cid=1145961369337
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagenam e=JPost/Page/IndexParMult&cid=1145961369337
Theland,
Is this not part of the process of demonising Iran and not really in proportion to the real threat. Is it not similar to the situation before the Iraq war when Bush and Blair made outrageous claims about Sadam's capabilities to annilate us all, most of which have now been proven to be untrue. The steady drip of Iran bashing stories seems to be gathering apace and where is it leading?
On the otherhand, the arms industry always needs a new bogeyman (this time Iran) on the block to peddle their wares. Bush has just announced a big expansion of the US military.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/16E36F8 4-6FF1-499A-A22E-7932F7AD86CB.htm
Is this not part of the process of demonising Iran and not really in proportion to the real threat. Is it not similar to the situation before the Iraq war when Bush and Blair made outrageous claims about Sadam's capabilities to annilate us all, most of which have now been proven to be untrue. The steady drip of Iran bashing stories seems to be gathering apace and where is it leading?
On the otherhand, the arms industry always needs a new bogeyman (this time Iran) on the block to peddle their wares. Bush has just announced a big expansion of the US military.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/16E36F8 4-6FF1-499A-A22E-7932F7AD86CB.htm
With present military committments, Iraq and Afghanistan, there's no way an invasion of Iran is viable, although there's more a case for it than there was for Iraq.
Israel has stated, that they may take unilateral action on Irans Nuclear facilities, whether they do or don't remains to be seen.
As far as invading Iran is concerned, can't see it happening.
Israel has stated, that they may take unilateral action on Irans Nuclear facilities, whether they do or don't remains to be seen.
As far as invading Iran is concerned, can't see it happening.
Israel destroyed Sadams' nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1980, was condemned at the time by even the U.S. but 23 years later we were glad that it was done. Imagine Sadam with a nuke!
Iran is different. The logistics are formidable, and the the facilities are spread around numerous sites. Maybe it can't be done at all. By anybody.
Iran is different. The logistics are formidable, and the the facilities are spread around numerous sites. Maybe it can't be done at all. By anybody.
Gromit, Ahmadinejad has already stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the face the Earth so lets not pretend that Iran is some peacefull little haven.
I think that Bush and Blair are rueing the day they invaded Iraq over so-called WMD's, because now they have Iran with (or nearly with) the genuine thing next door. There is no way they can do anything about it apart from trying to get that useless talking shop (UN) to try and intervene.
I think that Bush and Blair are rueing the day they invaded Iraq over so-called WMD's, because now they have Iran with (or nearly with) the genuine thing next door. There is no way they can do anything about it apart from trying to get that useless talking shop (UN) to try and intervene.
According to the US 'National Intelligence Estimate', Iran is 10 years away from being able to make a bomb, so the genuine thing is not next door.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a rticle/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html
I agree that everything should be done to stop them getting that far, but I don't think the first option should be the military one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a rticle/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html
I agree that everything should be done to stop them getting that far, but I don't think the first option should be the military one.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.