Iran - The Bomb

[Officer Dibble]

With the president of Iran suggesting he would like to wipe Israel of the face of the map (apparently an unprecedented and shocking statement for the leader of a nation to make) can we allow them to get 'the bomb?? Or should we at some point step in and take whatever action is necessary to prevent that happening. Can the western world allow any belligerent, erratic, third world state to get the bomb? The world is now a very small place and the effects of these weapons are huge. Even if third word countries just lob them at each other there would be global consequences i.e. environmental and financial. Can we allow that to happen or should we intervene and put any irrational, erratic, upstarts down before they can become a danger to themselves and everyone else on the planet.


Officer Dibble

[philylad13]

Hi Officer Dibble, a couple of quick questions, I'm just wondering, would you support a US invasion of Britain, because we have nuclear weapons (with new ones on the way) & because we attacked/ invaded another country, under the assumption that they had WMD, despite all the intelligence being madeup or exagerated (such as Uranium from Niger or 45 mins, for example).

Or should we have allowed Britain to invade Iraq, to make them, 'comply with UN resolutions'? Because if so, this is one of the reasons that the Iranian President has given for his recent statement, as Israel is not complying with numerous UN resolutions, with the US vetoing each time.

Or should we finally wakeup and realise that the US & UK governments are using the same arguments against Iran as they did with Iraq, when no evidence is found they will change there story to with, 'we doing it for freedom or something like that', just to get their oil.

In regards to your final statement, 'Can we allow that to happen or should we intervene and put any irrational, erratic, upstarts down before they can become a danger to themselves and everyone else on the planet'. Does that include Bush & Blair, when they don't just suggest attacking a foreign country, they do it, under false allegations and then try to do the same thing with Iran, and people believe it?

It would be hilarious that people are willing to believe their Government and not question such matters, if it didn't have such chaotic results for the people of that country.

Finally, any country that says to another, 'do as we say or we will bomb you' is the an almost Dictionary definition of terrorism, be it the Iranian president or our leadership. The Dictionary definition of terrorism: Practice of using violent and intimidating methods, esp. to achieve political ends.

[Pervert]

Blair's comments on Syria a couple of days ago prove that nothing has changed. He accused the Syrian government of flouting international authority, interfering in the affairs of sovereign states, and trying to undermine democracy.

I think Cherie's working on his breach of copyright court case.

Answering Dibble's main point, I don't know. Cause and effect, mate. By charging in, we could start the very catastrophe we're trying to avoid. If Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything, it's that you shouldn't rush into action unless you've thought it all through. Given Saddam had no friends in the Arab world, we got away with that. Afghanistan is just about far enough away to get away with. But if we go stomping into Iran (or Syria, Yemen, even Saudia Arabia---and goodness knows there are reasons enough for a politician to argue a case), we're looking for decades of trouble by the shitload.

[diplodocus]

another devils advocate post dibs, but one I like

the stressing over western morals and actions stated in other replies are all meaningless as if Iran ever got really near to getting a bomb (and don't pretend they don't know exactly how far they are) then Israel would blow the fuck out of any reactor enriching uranium, as they have done before and bollocks to what the UN think

[Officer Dibble]

" would you support a US invasion of Britain"

No, but the question wouldn't arise, would it? Since the UK and the US are all but conjoined (special relationship and all that). Indeed, the US has already given us some of their most potent weapons, like the Trident - though for a slight consideration, of course. The point is you don't sell that kind of kit to erratic, idiotic, governments, whether they can afford it or not. You've got to be dam close and pally with them and have the utmost confidence that they will behave responsibly, both now, and in the future.


"Israel is not complying with numerous UN resolutions, with the US vetoing each time."

I don't see Israel not complying with UN resolutions as a major problem at the moment. They are a free liberal democracy, exactly like ours in the west. The Israelis are RATIONAL and intelligent. You don't see crowds of them jumping up an down in the street firing Kalashnikovs and going "Hubba, hubba, hubba!' do ya'? They have a steely measured resolve and lots of other admirable qualities, too. I reckon they're pretty cool. Of course the US has no intention of giving Israel a hard time - why should it? Israel is the only really rational, stable, totally westward looking state in the region. They will be scratching each other's backs in the militarily intelligence fields, and lets not forget that there are very many powerful Jews and Jewish institutions in the US. In fact the US has a natural affinity with the Jewish people. Look at Benjamin Netynyahoo. He could be the next prime minister - but he looks and talks like a Manhattan banker. So, isn't it only natural and sensible that the America would want to support Israel?


?Or should we finally wakeup and realise that the US & UK governments are using the same arguments against Iran as they did with Iraq, when no evidence is found they will change there story to with, 'we doing it for freedom or something like that', just to get their oil.?

This is a totally different situation. I don?t think there are many people who doubt that the Iranians have a quite advanced nuclear program. We?ve seen the photos. Delegations have even visited their nuclear reactor sites. Even those nocy, poncy, tossers like Chirac and Schroeder agree that it?s a serious issue and have been doing some hand wringing over it. So, how can you say, ?there is no evidence??

I don?t believe this is about oil. I feel, this time it?s a little more serious than that. There?s more substance to this issue. And anyhow, the Iranians are keen to sell their oil; we can afford it (just), so why would we need to take it?


?In regards to your final statement, 'Can we allow that to happen or should we intervene and put any irrational, erratic, upstarts down before they can become a danger to themselves and everyone else on the planet'. Does that include Bush & Blair,?

No, Bush and Blair are cool kick-ass dudes. I like dudes who kick-ass. They?re the democratically elected leaders of the western world. The people of the west have put their trust in them to manage their affairs, maintain their standard of living, and to protect their interests. That is what they are doing ? whether you agree with their methods or not. The people have even had chances to sack both men and have declined to do so. They have won votes of confidence (elections). So, why are you at odds with the people? Why do you take a contrary line? They are protecting your standard of living, to (if you?re in a western democracy, that is). So, why not give them a bit of support?


?It would be hilarious that people are willing to believe their Government and not question such matters, if it didn't have such chaotic results for the people of that country.?

I don?t believe jack what governments, public institutions, companies, media organizations or political parties say. I find they are all, to some degree, self-serving, snidey, scheming, irrational, agenda setting, idiots. But there are strands and elements of truth out there, you just have to carefully collect and collate them, put them together in a rational way. That can give you a good idea of what is going down. For instance, it was perfectly clear to me that the Bush administration had the hard on for Sadam 12 months before they actually went in. You know, sometimes I don?t care if the government is lying to me ? like for instance about WMD. I thought it was a groovy idea to kick Saddam?s ass anyway ? though with hindsight it would probably have been much better to leave him to get on with it. He had effective ways of dealing with insurgents and irrational trouble causing idiots ? like feeding them through paper shredders! Yes, with hindsight it looks like the Iraqi?s had the leader they deserved. We could have saved ourselves a lot of money and grief.


?Finally, any country that says to another, 'do as we say or we will bomb you' is the an almost Dictionary definition of terrorism, be it the Iranian president or our leadership. The Dictionary definition of terrorism: Practice of using violent and intimidating methods, esp. to achieve political ends.?

Well, that?s as may be. But when you are dealing with people who are irrational and erratic, who do not share our sensible values and maybe have a different mindset, it may be regrettable, but you have to address them in a language that they are fluent in. A language that is understood by all. Even those who may have difficulty with our rational western way of well, reasoning. At the end of the day we in the west want to, nay have to, maintain our lifestyle and the global environment, such as it is. But if any third world wasters threaten our lifestyle and the quality of our lives we have the power to stop them. And all those citizens who love driving down to the mall or MacDonald?s in their 4 * 4 or jetting off to Tenerife on ?Chav Air? of a weekend would not take kindly to any administration that let street-chanting third world idiots fuck all that up.


Officer Dibble

[steve56]

er he said sorry afterwards though,almost a monty python joke i thought.lol.

[Deuce Bigolo]

He didn't say anything that most of the Arab Countries in the middle east don't think in private anyway but have enough common sense to keep it to themselves

The nuclear threat is all bluff IMHO

North Korea have been using it to bring the US of A to the talks table over trade & sanctions

The threat of a nuclear weapon being used in a bomb is still more likely to come from terrorists buying it from some former soviet state than anywhere else

cheers
B....OZ

[David Johnson]

Hi,
There is nothing remotely new about Iran's stated comments re. Israel. This has been their position since the fall of the Shah of Persian and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini decades ago.
What we, the public of Britain, USA and Iran, amongst others are on the receiving end of, is the politics of fear - something that has been a keynote of foreign policy for centuries. Its been an extraordinarily useful tactic for keeping the general populace in their place, confused and scared.
It goes like this...

1. Country A e.g. Britain, USA state that they or their allies are threatened and in imminent danger from an attack from Country C e.g. Iraq and then invade to deal with the imagined (subsequently proved to be unreal - no WMD etc.) threat.

2. Country A e.g. USA states that certain countries (Iran, North Korea etc.) are part of an axis of evil, plotting the overthrow of the good guys e.g. USA.

3. Countries B, C and D etc e.g. Iran, then think that there really is a need to be able to defend themselves, otherwise they will go the way of Iraq. This strengthens their desire to get hold of WMD. It also provides a good rallying cry for the Iranian government against the millions of ordinary Iranians who want a more relaxed state with basic human rights such as freedom of speech. "We must unify against the foreign oppressor e.g. USA"

4. As a result of 3. Country A e.g USA and Britain can then say, "Told you so.. these folks are up to no good!"

5. The populace of Country A, e.g. USA are then forced to think twice about their opposition to their government which allows many of its populace to live in conditions similar to a Third World country e.g. Louisiana, parts of many American big cities because to attack the government becomes "unpatriotic" at a time of unprecedented, potential attacks on the state.

6. Back to 1 as and when. And so it goes on.

It would be very funny, if it wasnt so very, very, sad with tens of thousands of innocent people, civilians, soldiers etc. dying.

Cheers
David

[strictlybroadband]

What the Iranian president said was definitely well out of order. While this unfolds bear in mind two things:

1) As the Iranians pointed out today, they have never attacked another country - unlike some we can mention
2) Bush and Blair want to attack Iran - so remember that when they get "outraged" by anything that Iran says or does

I'd put Iran on the UN list for slapped wrists. But there are a few countries that have done worse things than just mouth off, including Britain and America. Not to mention Israel, Burma, Zimbabwe...

[nachovx]

They're going to get attacked anyway ... if not by US/UK, then by Israel. It's not like they don't deserve it. This is just their way of testing to measure our response, it's a game that they'll push to the limits - and most European countries would let them get away with it, Thankfully we've got Israel and the US, who will respond ...I'm pretty sure this is going to end in a war, but it may as well be now as 2 years down the line when they may have nuclear weapons, if they haven't already.