Iran – Deal or No Deal

[Creaky]

the diffrence is that ISIS , control and try to hold territory and fight set piece battles , whereupon any half decent army would annihilate them , the taliban dont do this , but make no mistake , given the political will i.e if the shackles were taken off in afghanistan,and it were treated as a war rather than an insurgency, and without ridiculous policies like courageous restraint british and american forces would do the same to the taliban, i'd make sure i knew what i was talking about before you start pontificating on subjects like this mate.

That's what the Russians thought - and their's was total all out war but they still couldn't sustain the offensive.

I agree that ISIS are trying to take territory whereas the Mujahideen are defending territory. What they do both have in common though is that their manpower can withdraw if need be and reappear as a force where resistance is lower.

As regards Iran then I think it is vital that we improve our links with all the Middle Eastern states whilst at the same time stepping back from trying to impose our values on their societies. Any hint that Muslim values are being imposed on UK culture and there is an immediate and natural resistance to them whether justified or not and yet there seems to be an element of surprise by some that there will be resistance and resentment when we try to impose our values.

 

[Triggaaar]

What's always entertaining in these 'debates' about nuclear weapons in the middle east is that no-one is ever allowed to mention the fact that one country in the region already.possesses an extensive and ready-to-fire nuclear arsenal. How can this be?

whilst i certainly dont want iran to get them , the hypocrisy of everybody, especially the americans, regarding israel is astounding.

Surely the ideal would be that no one has them, but that's not achievable. Surely the next aim is to stop anyone else getting them.

Israel has them, and there is no danger of them using them. If Iran or other neighbouring country had them, would you honestly say the same?

 

[ferring seagull]

Whilst I too retain a certain degree of sceptisim, etc., we should also remember that Iran was substantially pro western under the Shah and that the 'overthrow' was managed by religious extremists/zealots whilst the vast majority of the population were NOT considered at all by those ceasing power !

We should not tar that general population with the same brush !

 

[alfredmizen]

Surely the ideal would be that no one has them, but that's not achievable. Surely the next aim is to stop anyone else getting them.

Israel has them, and there is no danger of them using them. If Iran or other neighbouring country had them, would you honestly say the same?

trouble is we dont live in an ideal world do we ? and whilst i dont agree that iran should have them i certainly dont agree that there is no danger of israel using them.

 

[Triggaaar]

trouble is we dont live in an ideal world do we ?

We certainly don't.

i certainly dont agree that there is no danger of israel using them.

Jesus, who would they use them on, and why? If there was a full scale invasion of Israel, and they couldn't stop the enemy with conventional weapons, then they could use them. But the idea that they'd use them just because they don't get on with their neighbours is mental.

 

[symyjym]

Whilst I too retain a certain degree of sceptisim, etc., we should also remember that Iran was substantially pro western under the Shah and that the 'overthrow' was managed by religious extremists/zealots whilst the vast majority of the population were NOT considered at all by those ceasing power !

We should not tar that general population with the same brush !

The trouble started when the US and Britain instigated the coup to take down Irans democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953 and replaced him with the Shah, who was dictated to by the west. Then the religious element took it for themselves, and now they are getting back to where they were in 1953. The coup was all about not liking the fact that Iran was going to nationalise their oil.

 

[ferring seagull]

The trouble started when the US and Britain instigated the coup to take down Irans democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953 and replaced him with the Shah, who was dictated to by the west. Then the religious element took it for themselves, and now they are getting back to where they were in 1953. The coup was all about not liking the fact that Iran was going to nationalise their oil.

I agree but my point was that a very substantial majority of Iran's population remained Westernised and pro Western but unable to perhaps until recently, with the advent of the Web, to express their opinions.

 

[symyjym]

I agree but my point was that a very substantial majority of Iran's population remained Westernised and pro Western but unable to perhaps until recently, with the advent of the Web, to express their opinions.

Yep, agree with your point.

 

[alfredmizen]

We certainly don't.

Jesus, who would they use them on, and why? If there was a full scale invasion of Israel, and they couldn't stop the enemy with conventional weapons, then they could use them. But the idea that they'd use them just because they don't get on with their neighbours is mental.

israel are serial ''overreacters'', we've seen that with their disregard for civilian casualties, it doesnt take a fantastic leap of imagination to see them using them if for instance they had lost the support of the americans and a war against their neighbours(any of them) was going badly.

 

[Triggaaar]

israel are serial ''overreacters'', we've seen that with their disregard for civilian casualties

And so are you if you think that means they'd use nuclear weapons. The US constantly cause civilian casualties and they're not even on the front line of the war on terror, but we don't expect them to be using a nuke.

it doesnt take a fantastic leap of imagination to see them using them if for instance they had lost the support of the americans and a war against their neighbours(any of them) was going badly.

But they're not at war with their neighbours. And if the US or anyone else was losing a war to defend our homeland, then we could use them too. Some of the neighbours of Israel however, deny their right to exist as a state and vow to wipe them off the face of the earth. Some also support terrorism, some can't defend themselves against ISIS, and if they had nuclear weapons it would be a much bigger concern. But you're ok with that?

 

[alfredmizen]

And so are you if you think that means they'd use nuclear weapons. The US constantly cause civilian casualties and they're not even on the front line of the war on terror, but we don't expect them to be using a nuke.

But they're not at war with their neighbours. And if the US or anyone else was losing a war to defend our homeland, then we could use them too. Some of the neighbours of Israel however, deny their right to exist as a state and vow to wipe them off the face of the earth. Some also support terrorism, some can't defend themselves against ISIS, and if they had nuclear weapons it would be a much bigger concern. But you're ok with that?

where have i said i'm ok with all the highlighted part ?

 

[Triggaaar]

where have i said i'm ok with all the highlighted part ?

My mistake, I'm getting ahead of myself. So you're agreeing that we should do all we can to stop other countries in the middle east from getting nuclear weapons?

 

[alfredmizen]

My mistake, I'm getting ahead of myself. So you're agreeing that we should do all we can to stop other countries in the middle east from getting nuclear weapons?

absolutely.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

wait for an offer from the Ayatollah...

 

[Triggaaar]

absolutely.

But you think it's hypocritical that we're not doing something about Israel's nukes?

 

[alfredmizen]

But you think it's hypocritical that we're not doing something about Israel's nukes?

In truth we (the nuclear powers) are all hypocritical in trying to deny them to otheres through the non proliferation policy , but the stance of the Americans in not even mentioning israels nukes is an insult to peoples intelligence, i dont get the point youre trying to make ?

 

[Triggaaar]

In truth we (the nuclear powers) are all hypocritical in trying to deny them to otheres through the non proliferation policy, but the stance of the Americans in not even mentioning israels nukes is an insult to peoples intelligence, i dont get the point youre trying to make ?

Well I disagree that we're being hypocritical. We got nuclear weapons because the world was at war and there was an arms race. We'd rather no one had them. The entire west can't relinquish them now, because there would be an imbalance in power which could lead to war. So to try and stop more nations getting nuclear weapons is not hypocritical, it's trying to keep peace in the world and save lives.

I'm don't know what the Americans have said in ignoring Israel's arsenal.

 

[daveinprague]

What war were we in when we gained British nukes?

To have Israel ..with nukes..plumped into the middle east, with a majestic history of UN resolution violations is a bit weird. ITs not as if there are no extremist Israeli groups who would like to wipe out many of the arab neighbours, so the ...'other people want to wipe them off the earth'... is the same to me.
I saw a news item during the week about some rightwing Israeli group saying it was ok to burn down Christian churches in Israel. Lovely, after Israeli extremists have just murdered a child with a firebombing. How about some of these groups sharing political power in the future? With Nuclear weapons.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

If there was a full scale invasion of Israel, and they couldn't stop the enemy with conventional weapons, then they could use them.

That would be suicidally foolhardy. Some of the world's most senior military strategists have conceded that the use of nuclear weapons can confer no military advantage whatsoever. Israel, a country the size of Wales, would itself suffer catastrophic losses from discharging a nuclear weapon over any neighbouring country.

Such niceties would not concern a bunch of religiously-motivated nutcases taking control of missile sites, whether in Israel or, more probably, Pakistan. For them, the dearly longed-for apocalyptic end would most certainly justify the means. Against that kind of threat, the only effective defence would be the abandonment of nukes by all nuclear-armed states.

 

[Triggaaar]

That would be suicidally foolhardy. Some of the world's most senior military strategists have conceded that the use of nuclear weapons can confer no military advantage whatsoever.

Well they're wrong aren't they, as they worked pretty well against Japan. And if Israel were going to lose a conventional war, they'd all be killed, so it would hardly be suicidal would it.

Israel, a country the size of Wales, would itself suffer catastrophic losses from discharging a nuclear weapon over any neighbouring country.

Well that would depend how far away they are sent. I would suggest Israel would send them far enough that the fall out didn't reach Israel.

Such niceties would not concern a bunch of religiously-motivated nutcases taking control of missile sites, whether in Israel or, more probably, Pakistan. For them, the dearly longed-for apocalyptic end would most certainly justify the means. Against that kind of threat, the only effective defence would be the abandonment of nukes by all nuclear-armed states.[/QUOTE]Do you think Russia and China would give up it's nukes? No, me neither, so that's not an option is it.