Iran Vs UK

[skadistic]

So the anti-government forses the evil jews fund, do they blow up busses and target babies?

What lies exactly does the US make up about Iran?

How exactly does the US bully and blackmail Iran?

Does the US threaten to destroy Iran? Does it fund terrorists that blow up Iranian babies?

And the US hasn't invaded Iran despite your lies, now has it?

Incase you haven't noticed and you probaly haven't had time to since the evil jews are all you can think of, but the Iranian gov. is evil. It exacuted rape victems and pays terrorist to kill civilians and also arms them with boms and rockets to target civilians. It also kidnaps UK sailors doing the UNs work in Iraqi waters to use as blackmail against the west so it can divert attion away from its nuke weapons programme or at the least keep the much needed sanctions from coming to fruition.

 

[GinandTonic]

Since this issue is about the UK and Iran I fail to see what the US's human rights record has to do with anything.

 

[steveedster]

Lets get back to the point here, Iran is WRONG on this issue, more so they have now broken the Geneva Conventions by using the captured marines as propaganda on state TV. Nice one Iran you really are showing the world what you are really all about here.

It will certainly be interesting to see the UK's response to this now. Whether the marines are returned or not, I cannot see the Iranian Navy having quite the freedom in that waterway from now on, no doubt the UK will send more warships and fast patrole vessels to that area in the coming months, I cant see then still using those small rigid craft after this.

 

[Lotus49]

OK, in this fun, exciting, fictional 'what-if' scenario:

C'mon now, who are we kidding - Britain would control (completely dominate) the sea & air, and have to pick their spots with fast, concentrated force in ground assaults to accomplish specific objectives, then egress.

Eventually, the country of Iran would be in complete shambles. The economy would grind to a halt, and everyone would be destitute, and ready to join the militia. From there, Britain would just have to pick and choose their targets, and avoid fighting purely for the sake of fighting - by avoiding the ragtag militia formations.

If collateral damage was 100% acceptable, it would simply come down to whether or not Britain was willing to spend enough money to produce the munitions required to eventually completely kill every single Iranian citizen (via cluster bombs, incendiaries, etc). Only then, would it 'end'.

That's about the jist of it.

Thus the reason they want nuclear weapons - then they wouldn't feel so (in reality...) helpless, against outside attack.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

With the U.K. comes Canada and Australia.

No. The Canadian government is not that moronic.

 

[Godwynn]

No. The Canadian government is not that moronic.

They usually help out when westerners are captured by Iran.

 

[Princeps]

So the anti-government forses the evil jews fund, do they blow up busses and target babies?

Probably.

What lies exactly does the US make up about Iran?

The Iranian President's speech for example - he never said anything about wiping Israel off the map. Also, while there might be propaganda efforts by US, most is done by biased media like MEMRI.

How exactly does the US bully and blackmail Iran?

US intervenes with Iranian domestic decisions.

Does the US threaten to destroy Iran? Does it fund terrorists that blow up Iranian babies?

Why do you use the word baby? Do you think it improves your arguement. The IDF bombs cut the heads of babies off, just like the belt of a suicide bomber.

United States surrounds Iran. It is treathening to use military action against Iran, US president OPENLY labels Iran EVIL. Can't you see the pattern?

When Bush talks about diplomacy - he's planning for war.

And the US hasn't invaded Iran despite your lies, now has it?

Yes it has - Operation Ajax. Also, United States actions well show that US has intentions of invading Iran within the coming decades.

the evil jews

Let me just point out that it is YOU who are using the word "evil Jew", I have nothing against Jewish people or Judaism, but I do not support the terrorist state of Israel or its very terrorist actions.

are all you can think of, but the Iranian gov. is evil. It exacuted rape victems

So - I never said that I like the Iranian government - I simply stated the fact that it is peaceful and relatively pragmatic, even despite the fact that is not genuinely Shariah nor truly democratic. Iran's tyrants and their regime has oppressive tendencies, but it is nowhere as aggressive as the Israeli regime or the Bush admin.

and pays terrorist to kill civilians and also arms them with boms and rockets to target civilians.

Once again - evidence. I still haven't see any evidence of large scale Iranian involvement, but I have read about US deliberately fabricating and falsifying evidence in their propaganda and black-painting campaign.

 

[Xanikk999]

The Iranian President's speech for example - he never said anything about wiping Israel off the map. Also, while there might be propaganda efforts by US, most is done by biased media like MEMRI.

Well i dont know about that, do you have a record of all his speeches? I know he has condemned israel tons of times, thought that may not have been the exact words.

US intervenes with Iranian domestic decisions.

How is that? Just wondering..

Why do you use the word baby? Do you think it improves your arguement. The IDF bombs cut the heads of babies off, just like the belt of a suicide bomber.

Well thats war for you. Of course the IDF in comparison isnt intentionally targeting civilians.

United States surrounds Iran. It is treathening to use military action against Iran, US president OPENLY labels Iran EVIL. Can't you see the pattern?

I agree, the axis of evil thing is a little overboard. No country is evil.

When Bush talks about diplomacy - he's planning for war.

Any evidence of this? This is a bad insight without any evidence.

Yes it has - Operation Ajax. Also, United States actions well show that US has intentions of invading Iran within the coming decades.

So after all the unpopularity bush has, do you think whoever gets elected will carry on this unpopular campaign and wage a war with iran that even bush has no intentions of doing?

Let me just point out that it is YOU who are using the word "evil Jew", I have nothing against Jewish people or Judaism, but I do not support the terrorist state of Israel or its very terrorist actions.

Waging war is not terrorism.

Once again - evidence. I still haven't see any evidence of large scale Iranian involvement, but I have read about US deliberately fabricating and falsifying evidence in their propaganda and black-painting campaign.

And i have seen many governments falsifying evidence and use propoganda to serve thier interests. That doesnt mean the U.S will attack Iran.

 

[Princeps]

Well i dont know about that, do you have a record of all his speeches? I know he has condemned israel tons of times, thought that may not have been the exact words.

True and Israel deserves to be condemned. What he did not say was that Israel (or Jews or Israelis) should be extreminated or anything like that. He has said that the regime ruling Israel should be removed - and he quoted another leader, IIRC.

How is that? Just wondering..

Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy. Iran is bound to the treaty due to voluntary decision to do so--- US has no place in that. Frankly, US should just shut up.

Well thats war for you. Of course the IDF in comparison isnt intentionally targeting civilians.

Of course they are.

I agree, the axis of evil thing is a little overboard. No country is evil.

Yes, but I actually think that Bush himself believes this. People like Bush and Cheney are dangerous because they think that Iran is actually the next "nazi-Germany"

Any evidence of this? This is a bad insight without any evidence.

Well, he said --- no lied his ass off about everything, including that he prefers diplomatic methods over violence. Bush is deceptive or a dangerously naive idiot, he talked about how Iraqi people were all around decent people, how they wanted freedom or something along the lines. Now, he's saying the exact same things about Iranians.

So after all the unpopularity bush has, do you think whoever gets elected will carry on this unpopular campaign and wage a war with iran that even bush has no intentions of doing?

This "war-hawk" attidute isn't only limited to the neo-conservatives --- they are the worst manifestation of it. US maybe war-weary now, but who knows what can happen in the coming decades. And if anything, US has this trend of invading sovereign states and a notoriously short memory.

Waging war is not terrorism.

Of course it is. War is terrorism multiplied by a thousand times. However, if you wish to stick to your defination of terrorism.... United States has done very little to prevent terrorism -- deliberately. United States has done nothing to cease its participation in terrorism. That's not how you stop terrorism.

And i have seen many governments falsifying evidence and use propoganda to serve thier interests. That doesnt mean the U.S will attack Iran.

Alone - no. But there are much more to situation than that. Like the fact that US has in the past attempted to control Iran, and currently labels Iran evil, SURROUNDS Iran with fleets and armies that could easily lay waste to the country. Combine these with the ongoing propaganda effort, and you see a very strong pattern.

 

[steveedster]

Back to the topic, ignoring anything else here Iran is behaving very badly. The latest letter written by the captured Faye Turney is obviously written under duress, I mean anyone in here position would just not have written the things she has written its so obvious to anyone living in the UK its laughable.

Whether they strayed into Iranian waters or not the correct course of action would have been for the Iranian vessels to have escorted these 2 small boats out of what they thought were their waters. Not keeping political hostages and saying to the UK and I quote ' Admit you were wrong or we are not releasing them'. However I still belive they were in Iraq waters when this happened.

Also Iran continues to purposly use the captured personnel for propaganda which is against the Geneva Conventions.

Iran is digging a BIG hole for itself here if it carries on like this, I only hope the more sensible parts of the Iranian government manage to sort this out.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Military Spending in 2005:
Iran: $4.9Billion
United Kingdom: $51.1Billion

That is misleading, as Iran has a comparative advantage in manpower, which is either cheap or free (even if it is of lower quality). Not to say the British wouldn't probably win in a straight-up battle, but just that military spending alone is misleading.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

That is misleading, as Iran has a comparative advantage in manpower, which is either cheap or free (even if it is of lower quality). Not to say the British wouldn't probably win in a straight-up battle, but just that military spending alone is misleading.

It's only misleading when it's out of context. I merely posted it because Sophie asked for "fun facts". It's an objective fact, whether it's "fun" is subjective.

Besides, military spending is more important than military manpower when it's done right anyway.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

With the U.K. comes Canada and Australia.

But then Canada never went to Iraq...

 

[Lotus49]

But then Canada never went to Iraq...

Technically speaking, Canada has 1 (one) service member in Iraq, serving under the U.N. as a 'blue helmet'.

Link: Ctrl+F... "Canada"

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Besides, military spending is more important than military manpower when it's done right anyway.

Ya, it is, but it doesn't mean manpower is meaningless. I was just pointing out a general skewing of the figure. A better example is Israel, which doesn't spend that much on its military (compared to countries with similar capabilities), but also doesn't have to pay much salary for the conscripts who have to give a year or two of their lives. There is an economic cost there not reflected in the military spending number.

Technically speaking, Canada has 1 (one) service member in Iraq, serving under the U.N. as a 'blue helmet'.

Link: Ctrl+F... "Canada"

Well, maybe we will send our man to Iran too.

 

[Lotus49]

Well, maybe we will send our man to Iran too.

I don't know who that guy is, but he must be on the fast-track in his career. I mean, being the ONLY guy the entire army with combat theater experience, etc. He must be getting medals and promotions like crazy compared to his peers.

There's proably... I dunno, at least 3 or 4 other Canadian soldiers that want this benefit and experience, and keep trying to get him redeployed, so they can go.

Hold down the fort. Mister One-man Canadian Army.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I don't know who that guy is, but he must be on the fast-track in his career. I mean, being the ONLY guy the entire army with combat theater experience, etc. He must be getting medals and promotions like crazy compared to his peers.

There's proably... I dunno, at least 3 or 4 other Canadian soldiers that want this benefit and experience, and keep trying to get him redeployed, so they can go.

Hold down the fort. Mister One-man Canadian Army.

Well, he probably has no more experience than practically the entire rest of the Canadian army that has cycled through Afghanistan. Kandahar isn't exactly Kabul.

 

[viz]

Really? Tell me, what (besides nuclear weapons of course) does the UK has what could bring Iran to its knees?

Remember "shock and awe"?

That's Storm Shadow in action as used by the RAF (and other cruise missiles fired from subs and surface vessels in the gulf).

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/casom.htm

http://www.eads.net/web/printout/en/1024/content/400004/4/56/41203564.html

 

[GenMarshall]

No doubt that whatever mess the UK gets into, the US is dragged in it for the long haul as well.

 

[Lotus49]

No doubt that whatever mess the UK gets into, the US is dragged in it for the long haul as well.

Ahh, what a strong, unbreakable alliance of valorous honor.