Are We Being Softened Up For An Illegal And Immoral Invasion Of Iran?

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Because the bullshit's starting to gain momentum, just like it did before the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq.

Has God told Bush to do it?

And has Bush told Blair to do it?

Cos it looks increasingly like that is the case.

And if the Labour government go along with it, every last Labour MP should be kicked out of power, whether they cover their arses by voting against it, or whether they don't. Because by allowing it happen, they will be accomplices after the fact.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Yep - this is coming. GW wanted to do it, we are blaming the Iranians for either supplying equipment or actively trying to destabilise Iraq, and what will happen next is we will start shouting for them to stop their nuclear programme. They will refuse, and we will head down the WMD route again.

One world, one flag.....

Best start getting yourselves fit, 'cos we are running out of Armed Forces to keep all this going - conscription next......!

 

[Stumpy Tim]

We don't have the resources to invade Iran

 

[Napper]

Well if they have nuclear projects going on then this could destabalise the middle east on a large scale.

Fair play that we have the balls to stand up for whats right,

I dont believe there leader is a mass murderer and torturer of his people ala Saddam Hussain though . Although to some that doesn't seem to matter

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Well if they have nuclear projects going on then this could destabalise the middle east on a large scale.

Fair play that we have the balls to stand up for whats right,

I dont believe there leader is a mass murderer and torturer of his people ala Saddam Hussain though . Although to some that doesn't seem to matter

Korea has nuclear projects going on, as do most other countries. We are not agitating to invade them - wonder why?

GW wants the Middle East as his personal petrol station, and he wants to hammer the Godless back into the stone age. If GW decided that OUR nuclear projects were not up to scratch, should we let him stop us? Should we f*** - the USA puts itself up as a world policeman - it's a world bully which fucks up on a royal scale and regular basis, then wonders why people dislike them? Less arrogance, more humility would be a start.

After 9/11 they had the nerve to tell us that the rest of the world could see what terrorism was really like - despite us having 30 years of the IRA, and despite the rest of the world living with insurgents, guerrillas, etc - terrorism wasn't "real" until it hit the States.

I would like our leadership to have the bollocks to stand up for what is right rather than rolling over to have their tummy tickled.

 

[Dandyman]

Korea has nuclear projects going on, as do most other countries. We are not agitating to invade them - wonder why?

GW wants the Middle East as his personal petrol station, and he wants to hammer the Godless back into the stone age. If GW decided that OUR nuclear projects were not up to scratch, should we let him stop us? Should we f*** - the USA puts itself up as a world policeman - it's a world bully which fucks up on a royal scale and regular basis, then wonders why people dislike them? Less arrogance, more humility would be a start.

After 9/11 they had the nerve to tell us that the rest of the world could see what terrorism was really like - despite us having 30 years of the IRA, and despite the rest of the world living with insurgents, guerrillas, etc - terrorism wasn't "real" until it hit the States.

I would like our leadership to have the bollocks to stand up for what is right rather than rolling over to have their tummy tickled.

 

[Napper]

Korea has nuclear projects going on, as do most other countries. We are not agitating to invade them - wonder why?

GW wants the Middle East as his personal petrol station, and he wants to hammer the Godless back into the stone age. If GW decided that OUR nuclear projects were not up to scratch, should we let him stop us? Should we f*** - the USA puts itself up as a world policeman - it's a world bully which fucks up on a royal scale and regular basis, then wonders why people dislike them? Less arrogance, more humility would be a start.

After 9/11 they had the nerve to tell us that the rest of the world could see what terrorism was really like - despite us having 30 years of the IRA, and despite the rest of the world living with insurgents, guerrillas, etc - terrorism wasn't "real" until it hit the States.

I would like our leadership to have the bollocks to stand up for what is right rather than rolling over to have their tummy tickled.

you cant compare Iraq to Korea, besides we are round the table with Korea which is one thing Iraq started to do but then refused the UN entry etc etc and I think you'll find within the last 3 weeks they have agred to cease projects which proves we had the right tatic with them

 

[bhaexpress]

Korea has nuclear projects going on, as do most other countries. We are not agitating to invade them - wonder why?

Lack of oil in the Far East ?

 

[Napper]

that oil arguement is absolute tosh , see previous reply

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

you cant compare Iraq to Korea, besides we are round the table with Korea

You what?

"Hello, Prime Minister Blair"
"Welcome to Downing Street, Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Il. It's great to see you. How's the wife and kids?"

I think not

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

you cant compare Iraq to Korea, besides we are round the table with Korea which is one thing Iraq started to do but then refused the UN entry etc etc and I think you'll find within the last 3 weeks they have agred to cease projects which proves we had the right tatic with them

Korea have tailed back because they have been granted trading status with the US. What should we base an intervention on?

Lack of human rights/human rights breaches?
Oppressive nature of political/religious systems?
Threatening nature of country to other countries?
Failure to comply with Inspections?
Dictatorial President?

Korea fits the bill in all of these. They have stalled the talks until the US "gives them" a reactor, and are refusing to restart talks.

Check out these stories first - Korea Want A Civilian Nuclear Reactor Before Stopping Programmes

Country Profile

 

[bhaexpress]

that oil arguement is absolute tosh , see previous reply

Okay then why does GB want to invade Iran ? From the Iranian point of view if NATO has a nuclear detterent why shouldn't they have one. And why shouldn't they have nuclear power stations ?

The current Iranian government has every reason to distrust the US in view of the fact they happily supported the corrupt regime of the Shah as it suited their agenda.

At the end of the day a lot of innocent people will end up dead.

 

[Napper]

depends where you search i spose

http://tampatrib.com/nationworldnews/MGBBA1XNTDE.html

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

that oil arguement is absolute tosh , see previous reply

We know it's not "tosh". Why have we not intervened in Zimbabwe/Uganda/? Why do we not intervene in the Far East? Why have the US not established a large presence in Bali to prevent more bombings?

You would have to be quite naive to think that the US is doing this out of the goodness of it's heart, or a desire for world peace - the only people who spout the world peace line are Miss World contesants, and no-one believes them either. Any intervention or invasion is based on self-preservation and acquisition - there is no point otherwise. We are being softened up with stories of "mad Mullahs", "nuclear programmes" and "Iranian Mercenaries" - the next step is for an ultimatum to be given which is unachievable, then a UN resolution (or not, depending on the messages GW is receiving).

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

depends where you search i spose

http://tampatrib.com/nationworldnews/MGBBA1XNTDE.html

Yep - it does depend where you search. The following quotes are embedded in your link....negotiation is obviously not going as smoothly as the title implied!

"President Bush cautiously welcomed the agreement as "a step forward in making this world a more secure place" but warned that "we expect a verifiable process."

In an immediate demonstration of the difficulty ahead, the official North Korean news agency early today quoted an unnamed Foreign Ministry spokesman as asserting that Pyongyang would not give up its weapons program until it received nuclear reactors from the United States. A State Department official shrugged off the statement, saying the focus would remain on the Beijing declaration."

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Whether GB wants to invades Iran or not its going to be far harder to do seeing as they have elections there (though we all know the clerics are in charge) and they haven't been accused of genocide recently or invaded a neighbouring country. Once the WMD was disproved they were the reasons for invading which just aren't as strong in Iran compared to Iraq.

If GB had a long time to build up pressure against Iran then maybe we could have an invasion. But it would take 5 years minimum and his time is up in 3. Also, unless Iran really start being naughty then another war would be very unpopular and his republican mates aren't going to thank him. They've already got a hard enough job already.

 

[JJ McClure]

Because the bullshit's starting to gain momentum, just like it did before the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq.

And how exactly do you know that it is bullshit?

Originally posted by HampshireSeagulls we are blaming the Iranians for either supplying equipment or actively trying to destabilise Iraq.

If we are blaming them then I reckon we are doing it with some justification.

It wasn't so long ago that Iran captured British soldiers in patrol boats, illegally paraded them on TV and then gave them back whilst keeping the boats and equipment to put on display as trophies.

 

[bhaexpress]

As I've said before, Iraq is another Vietnam and Iran would be even worse, will the American leaders never learn ?

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Whether GB wants to invades Iran or not its going to be far harder to do seeing as they have elections there (though we all know the clerics are in charge) and they haven't been accused of genocide recently or invaded a neighbouring country. Once the WMD was disproved they were the reasons for invading which just aren't as strong in Iran compared to Iraq.

If GB had a long time to build up pressure against Iran then maybe we could have an invasion. But it would take 5 years minimum and his time is up in 3. Also, unless Iran really start being naughty then another war would be very unpopular and his republican mates aren't going to thank him. They've already got a hard enough job already.

The US need no provocation. 1983 - Grenada. 1986 - Libya. 1989 - Panama. All based on "leftist" governments, or ideology which clashed with the US. If GW wants to drop in on Iran, he will find enough reason.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Re: Re: Are We Being Softened Up For An Illegal And Immoral Invasion Of Iran?

And how exactly do you know that it is bullshit?




If we are blaming them then I reckon we are doing it with some justification.

It wasn't so long ago that Iran captured British soldiers in patrol boats, illegally paraded them on TV and then gave them back whilst keeping the boats and equipment to put on display as trophies.

So why not kick off with them at the time? Mainly because it would have been the UK kicking off at a time when GW was not in a position to support the move. The time has progressed, and GW wants to cauterise the Middle East. Evidence of Iranian nuclear programmes, destabilisation, etc, will surface now.

As for the boats being captured, this was Iran testing and proving their maritime limits - they had been patrolling up to the limit before the interception was made, and there was an error in navigation which caused the problem - the Iranians were actually within their rights. Something that we would have done had we caught Iranians in the Iraqi limits - and we would have displayed their boats and weapons (but not their people, there is a difference in culture and how we apply the Geneva Convention!).