28 replies to this topic

[todd1970]

Not wanting to get all political on youse..though just to guage your reactions to this.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israel 'ready to act' over Iran

Wonder what this means..has Bush been wanting this all along..Israel to be drawn into the conflict..so the US will take Israel's side..Palestinines taking Irans side.

Global meltdown in the middle east..sparking a third world war.

Just a sensible non-political discussion here.

[Guitar]

Its slightly worrying but then again I have no control over it whatsoever. There's been numerous petitions, marches etc to get out of the current war to no avail.


If its going to happen, its going to happen. Hopefully their nuclear technology is shit and the missile crashes on the way to its destination.

[stuart4000]

For over 30 years Britain were only a hop, skip and jump away from the IRA and as the bombs at Canary Wharf and Maggie's Tory Conference Hotel showed, they meant business.
Now can someone explain why they weren't closed down in an instant, why after bombs went off in this country that it still took so long for a ceasefire?

Now Iran launch a rocket that might as well say Nerf up the side of it seeing as they've got about 24 of them and a big stick in the top of it that shoots out and says "BANG" on a flag, and everyone gets itchy trigger finger again.

We should get the f*** out of Iraq - the country were led into this by America. Yes folks, America, a country that unlike Russia, the UK, France, Greece and a number of other countries has only been in existence (of note, i'm not talking pre 1776) for around 240 years.

It's taken Britain over 1000 years to get it's democracy/Parliment where it is just now, and yet for some reason when the relative youngester of America says Jump, we reply How High?

Mugabe is the biggest WMD (for the people of his own country no less) in the World right now, and yet we sit with our thumbs up our arses.


Sorry, rant over.

[Zoltar]

Not wanting to get all political on youse..though just to guage your reactions to this.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israel 'ready to act' over Iran

Wonder what this means..has Bush been wanting this all along..Israel to be drawn into the conflict..so the US will take Israel's side..Palestinines taking Irans side.

Global meltdown in the middle east..sparking a third world war.

Just a sensible non-political discussion here.

I doubt there would be such consequences as a third world war. Sure, China and Russia will stand against any action the US or Isreal see fit to impose on Iran as predicted, but they are both a long way from going down the road of conflict against anyone who messes with Iran.

I believe that all warring nations at worst, would push for, or try to impose their own way of life on a potential foe. The west hide behind the 'democracy' tag. But I doubt any country would want to wipe the planet out. Iran may have some nasty weapons but they have no decent delivery system. Isreal may take a hit or two but anything 1000 miles plus away is probably way out of reach of Iran's weapons. The concerns of the west towards the likes of Iran and North Korea, is that they may have the bomb. And as each year goes by, surely it's more opportunity for the said states to reach the point of achieving a delivery system for their bombs that make any conflict, a wider incident.

Politics these days is simply a game of bluff. We call their bluff, they call ours. But what I believe, is that the longer we sit on the sidelines and watch from afar, the harder it will be to remedy a political crisis. We did that at the beginning of World War II by declaring war on Germany, and doing bugger all for almost 2 years. If we were more swift, we may well have reduced the 58 million deaths that resulted from that war, and reduced the years it ran for.

Take Iraq. People seem to be in agreement that we shouldn't be there. That we are interfering. But the otherside of the coin, we will never know. But who's to say that if left alone, Iraq, and Sadam may well have developed weapons that could reach any target on earth. Of course, that is hypothetical, but if we had done nothing back when we went in, would we be all sat here now saying, 'We should have gone in earlier and stopped all this before it got out of hand.' We will never know. Again, hypothetically, a few thousand servicemen die in a prolonged war as we have had, or how about Sadam being left alone to develop his weaponry and he wreaks havoc on the worlds cities.

People just agree that we shouldn't be there. But no body ever thinks of any potential reprocussions if we had done nothing. I'm not saying we should be there or not. But political correctness these days seem to blatently shout about what is wrong with society. How we should do this, or how we should'nt do that. Even if such wrongs benefit society and make daily life more bareable.

If left alone, who knows what Iran may be capable of in just a few short years. One thing we definately know though, is that they certainly won't be moving backwards. They of course will be moving forwards, and pushing for the things that will secure their way of life. And that will make things so much harder to remedy, the longer we remain inactive.

[Zoltar]

For over 30 years Britain were only a hop, skip and jump away from the IRA and as the bombs at Canary Wharf and Maggie's Tory Conference Hotel showed, they meant business.
Now can someone explain why they weren't closed down in an instant, why after bombs went off in this country that it still took so long for a ceasefire?

Now Iran launch a rocket that might as well say Nerf up the side of it seeing as they've got about 24 of them and a big stick in the top of it that shoots out and says "BANG" on a flag, and everyone gets itchy trigger finger again.

We should get the f*** out of Iraq - the country were led into this by America. Yes folks, America, a country that unlike Russia, the UK, France, Greece and a number of other countries has only been in existence (of note, i'm not talking pre 1776) for around 240 years.

It's taken Britain over 1000 years to get it's democracy/Parliment where it is just now, and yet for some reason when the relative youngester of America says Jump, we reply How High?

Mugabe is the biggest WMD (for the people of his own country no less) in the World right now, and yet we sit with our thumbs up our arses.


Sorry, rant over.

I agree with your post. It does show how double standards are rife though. We go into Iraq, but do nothing about Mugabe. We do embarass ourselves by being tough on one, and unresponsive on another. We should deal with all aggressors in the same manner. Either attempt to sort them out, or do nothing and risk the reprocussions of such inaction.

As for the American argument. The US have the money to deal with such matters. Again, they are hypocrites as they are selective in how they deal with volatile states. This is why their argument for war in Iraq rubs so many people up the wrong way. Unfortunately for us, we are the US's closest ally. We may appear to be the US's pet dog, but they need us more than people know. If we agree with the Americans, their argument stands quite well. If they act alone, they are percieved as simple bullies. We don't have the financies or the materials to make a stand alone. But we will support those who support the UK argument. Wether the population accepts such an argument is irrelevent. Our connection to the US is as close as that of brothers. They act, we support. But the US no longer do things alone. We are told of their intentions and unfortunately, out relationship with the US means we will pretty much back them up on every occasion.

[stuart4000]

I agree with your post. It does show how double standards are rife though. We go into Iraq, but do nothing about Mugabe. We do embarass ourselves by being tough on one, and unresponsive on another. We should deal with all aggressors in the same manner. Either attempt to sort them out, or do nothing and risk the reprocussions of such inaction.

As for the American argument. The US have the money to deal with such matters. Again, they are hypocrites as they are selective in how they deal with volatile states. This is why their argument for war in Iraq rubs so many people up the wrong way. Unfortunately for us, we are the US's closest ally. We may appear to be the US's pet dog, but they need us more than people know. If we agree with the Americans, their argument stands quite well. If they act alone, they are percieved as simple bullies. We don't have the financies or the materials to make a stand alone. But we will support those who support the UK argument. Wether the population accepts such an argument is irrelevent. Our connection to the US is as close as that of brothers. They act, we support. But the US no longer do things alone. We are told of their intentions and unfortunately, out relationship with the US means we will pretty much back them up on every occasion.

Spot on, American Intervention in WWII was one of the main factors for the end of the war. Not only that, but they gave the UK a bucketload of cash at the time that we've only recently paid back (I think).

[ForYouToEnvy]

I agree with your post. It does show how double standards are rife though. We go into Iraq, but do nothing about Mugabe. We do embarass ourselves by being tough on one, and unresponsive on another. We should deal with all aggressors in the same manner. Either attempt to sort them out, or do nothing and risk the reprocussions of such inaction.

We cant deal with mugabe now as our forces are streched to breaking point already, maybe if some of our nato allies got off their fat lasy asses and did something.....

Other african nations should sort out mugabe anyway...

at the google ad after tod's post

[TurboZed]

I doubt there would be such consequences as a third world war. Sure, China and Russia will stand against any action the US or Isreal see fit to impose on Iran as predicted, but they are both a long way from going down the road of conflict against anyone who messes with Iran.

I believe that all warring nations at worst, would push for, or try to impose their own way of life on a potential foe. The west hide behind the 'democracy' tag. But I doubt any country would want to wipe the planet out. Iran may have some nasty weapons but they have no decent delivery system. Isreal may take a hit or two but anything 1000 miles plus away is probably way out of reach of Iran's weapons. The concerns of the west towards the likes of Iran and North Korea, is that they may have the bomb. And as each year goes by, surely it's more opportunity for the said states to reach the point of achieving a delivery system for their bombs that make any conflict, a wider incident.

Politics these days is simply a game of bluff. We call their bluff, they call ours. But what I believe, is that the longer we sit on the sidelines and watch from afar, the harder it will be to remedy a political crisis. We did that at the beginning of World War II by declaring war on Germany, and doing bugger all for almost 2 years. If we were more swift, we may well have reduced the 58 million deaths that resulted from that war, and reduced the years it ran for.

Take Iraq. People seem to be in agreement that we shouldn't be there. That we are interfering. But the otherside of the coin, we will never know. But who's to say that if left alone, Iraq, and Sadam may well have developed weapons that could reach any target on earth. Of course, that is hypothetical, but if we had done nothing back when we went in, would we be all sat here now saying, 'We should have gone in earlier and stopped all this before it got out of hand.' We will never know. Again, hypothetically, a few thousand servicemen die in a prolonged war as we have had, or how about Sadam being left alone to develop his weaponry and he wreaks havoc on the worlds cities.

People just agree that we shouldn't be there. But no body ever thinks of any potential reprocussions if we had done nothing. I'm not saying we should be there or not. But political correctness these days seem to blatently shout about what is wrong with society. How we should do this, or how we should'nt do that. Even if such wrongs benefit society and make daily life more bareable.

If left alone, who knows what Iran may be capable of in just a few short years. One thing we definately know though, is that they certainly won't be moving backwards. They of course will be moving forwards, and pushing for the things that will secure their way of life. And that will make things so much harder to remedy, the longer we remain inactive.

Top post mate! Very few people seem to think about what would have happened had we done nothing
One thing nobody has mentioned....Mugabe doesn't have any oil, doesn't have the ability to make wepons of mass distruction.....

[aaamusements]

Top post mate! Very few people seem to think about what would have happened had we done nothing
One thing nobody has mentioned....Mugabe doesn't have any oil, doesn't have the ability to make wepons of mass distruction.....

BUT...
Zimbabwe used to produce masses of grain before MUGabe ran the country into the ground.
Lack of production has played a part in the rising cost of food, and although the contribution is small compared to the massive effect of fuel price rises, I think we could eventually see wars fought over food.

[TurboZed]

I think we could eventually see wars fought over food.

Almost guarunteed with the world population exploding the way it is. Infact if something isn't done about it very soon, we'll be fighting over oil,food,space,everything!

[Daryl]

I agree with the posts made by Zoltar, but when the UK did make a stand of its own, on the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands, where was the United States of America as our closest ally then?

Ronald Reagan, the then US President was making 'pals' with most of the countries of South America, and sooner than jeapodize that, we received no military help from the US whatsoever - and what proved another thing then - was that we didn't need them either! We won - on our own terms and the courageous fighting of the UK armed forces - the best in the world in my biased and personal opinion, and that is why the US need us - we have the best fighting servicemen and women in the world in my opinion, and most definitely the United States of america need the UK, more than hell than we need them - as the Falklands War proved.

So although it may look sometimes that we are the poodle of the United States, it is in fact the other way round, the US need us there to make them look a fighting force. They may have all the money for sophisticated technology, weaponry and surveillance, but the true fighting grit is always there with the UK soldier by the American side.

I am so proud of our UK armed forces, and that is proven by the USA needing us whenever there is a hotspot in the world.

[Bandits]

Why is it that we british are america's closest ally because lets not forget that the american goverment gave money and arms to the I.R.A to help kill and mame the british people so i feel we should not be america's lap dog.

It makes me laugh when american wants to police the world especially when their oil reserves are running low but they do nothing about north korea,burma or mugabe.

Americans are just war mongers and its no wonder the white race is hated so much!

We need to learn to resolve problems without fighting but sometimes wars are unavoidable especially when one country attacks another or evil dictators kill and torture millions of people because evil can only exist when good sits back and does nothing, I hope i aint around when world war 3 starts because with todays technology it will be far worse than world war 2.

[Zoltar]

Food wars could be a thing of the future. As mentioned earlier in the thread, Zimbabwe was the success story in Africa where food production was concerned. They exported massive amounts to it's neighbours, a very self sufficient country. Then, he booted out all the white farmers, the very people who could get the most out of the land. Overnight, the country could no longer feed itself and so the political crisis worsened. Mugabe blaming the British for his country's woes. Again, theres no real disadvantage to the UK for Zimbabwe's current situation. And as a result, we don't seem bothered. If they were a big producer of something the UK depended on, we may have seen a different situation.


The Falklands as mentioned earlier, was a unique situation. Reagan more or less publically told Mrs Thatcher to let the Argentinians have the Falklands. We stood our ground because our history didn't allow us to do otherwise. The only way British territories are let go of, is when the UK say so. Through democratic means. Anything taken, is prized back from a foe. The UK were prepared to do everything in it's power to take the Falklands back. Even if that would have lead to us going bankrupt and losing. Doing nothing was not an option.

Those who remember the Falklands, will remember it was Russian and French weaponry and US money that gave the Argentinians, a country under a dictatorship, the opportunity to confront us in the first place. Our servicemen were slain by weapons from our closest neighbour, paid for by money from our closest ally. And why did we win the war? Well, besides our excellent servicemen doing what they are the best at, it was a nice little plane that was untried in war and the whole world was sceptical about. The Harrier jump jet. An exclusively UK victory with no help from anyone. After 3 decades of giving up our empire, and looking like a weak man, Maggie Thatcher showed the world that we were still capable of messing with people if they messed with us. Up to that point, the world saw us as a weak country unable to defend herself and unable to hold on to her empire. The Falklands, thats when the UK last truly policed the world and there was no oil involved.

[Zoltar]

Why is it that we british are america's closest ally because lets not forget that the american goverment gave money and arms to the I.R.A to help kill and mame the british people so i feel we should not be america's lap dog.

It makes me laugh when american wants to police the world especially when their oil reserves are running low but they do nothing about north korea,burma or mugabe.

Americans are just war mongers and its no wonder the white race is hated so much!

We need to learn to resolve problems without fighting but sometimes wars are unavoidable especially when one country attacks another or evil dictators kill and torture millions of people because evil can only exist when good sits back and does nothing, I hope i aint around when world war 3 starts because with todays technology it will be far worse than world war 2.

The Americans may appear as 'war mongers', but it's very existence is keeping the peace in so many other volatile areas. Countries that would invade a neighbour but refrain from such actions because of potential US retaliation. During the cold war, it was the US that held the USSR in check. If the US kept herself to herself, the USSR would have grown much more further than it did. In Korea, if the US did nothing, we would be looking at a united Korea, but under North Korean communist rule probably rules from Moscow. Taiwan, if it wasn't for the US, that would be under Chinese rule. Kuwait would be part of Iraq, Going further back, Afghanistan would have been part of the USSR, as well as Cuba. The USSR would have taken the whole of Germany and Austria after WWII, probably parts of China too so lets not forget that although the USA get things wrong from time to time, they are probably solely responsible for our world not being in a worse state than it already is.

[Magz]

In addition to the above, it should be noted that the default position of the US is actually isolationist, both in terms of politics and general feeling of the populace. When the US does get involved with other conflicts it is usually to protect its own interests and that of its allies. I do not believe the US are "war mongers" as conflict generally is not in their interest. What IS in their interest is free trade and a peaceful trading scenario especially in areas which supply commodities (including but not limited to Oil) to their economy.

The UK is the #1 ally of America not just becasue we are culturally similar but we are also massively linked in commerce. For every £1 exported to the EU we do £2 of trade with the US. As shown with their attitude to the Germans and French over the Iraq conflict, they are not above cutting those trading links if they feel slighted and the populace will back them on that.

As for the Iranians, they can do what they like, BUT, if they launch on Israel then it's game over for them and large parts of that region. They know that, as did the Russians and for that reason I don't see this as much more than bluster on their behalf. I hope I'm right!!!

[TurboZed]

I'm Pretty sure you are Magz..it would be utter suicide to attack Israel, they would get nuked to buggery in return. I think personally that their leader just wants to rattle his sabre on the world stage.

[Gazeyre1966]

After reading and digesting your information everyone I have decided on this well thought out, drunken opinion on how to solve all the issues with the middle east.

Drop a fecking great big nuclear bomb on the fecking lot of 'em.

They are nothing but a pain in the arse and if they didn't have oil then they wouldn't have f*** all!!!!

There.....Give me another fortnight and I'll solve the problems of Zimbabwe!!!

[Bandits]

After reading and digesting your information everyone I have decided on this well thought out, drunken opinion on how to solve all the issues with the middle east.

Drop a fecking great big nuclear bomb on the fecking lot of 'em.

They are nothing but a pain in the arse and if they didn't have oil then they wouldn't have f*** all!!!!

There.....Give me another fortnight and I'll solve the problems of Zimbabwe!!!

LMFAO

[highlander22]

Not wanting to get all political on youse..though just to guage your reactions to this.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israel 'ready to act' over Iran

Wonder what this means..has Bush been wanting this all along..Israel to be drawn into the conflict..so the US will take Israel's side..Palestinines taking Irans side.

Global meltdown in the middle east..sparking a third world war.

Just a sensible non-political discussion here.

Isrell Stayed out the first time (Iraq War Part 1), but still got bombed. Iran took in Saddam's War Planes, and maybe the Nuclear Technology as well, so no wonder we didn't find it the second time we went in (Iraq War Part 2).

Should have done the job right the first time round!!

This war on both fronts (Iraq & Afganistane) is going to turn into another Vietnam, but good point anyway.

[jamesb99_1999]

We didn't just declare war (world war II) with Germany and do nothing for 2 years (effectively we used that time to build up munitions in this country as because of our inaction for the 2 years previous to that we had not done so), we we were ill prepared for war.

War/ armies are about money and time and political will and at the moment because of the liberal left there is no will for war (which has also decreased budgets). I do not think that war is never a good thing however inaction is often worse, where would we have been if we had not FINALLY acted against Hitler. The difference between Saddam and Mugabe is not just the fact of oil; there is also a massive history in Africa which complicates things further, we would be going against the whole African nation effectively (which is why it's all being forced down the road of mediation), whereas in The Middle East we had allies against Iraq. The simple fact is it was always a matter of time before Saddam looked to erode borders (which he already had in a Hitleresque manner - which was part of the cause for the first Gulf war), whereas Mugabe's crimes are all around his treatment of his people, which are less threatening to the international community. So action was always innevitable with Saddam whereas with Mugabe it could exacerbate a political situation.

People always claim America are war mongers (my dad is American), however the truth is that they were (possibly still are) the most powerful force on the planet - This is where Britain was when it was trying to police the world.. It almost seems unthinkable that they wouldn't act in internation crisis - but they are in the horrible position where if they act people always claim it's for their own purposes - but if they didn't act they are attacked too. Where would we have been in the second World War if America had not acted there.. Infact we owe the final victory to Japan attacking America (as they probably wouldn't have acted otherwise).

If we are honest with ourselves (the general population) the volatile Middle East threatens us a lot more (largely because of it's wealth, but also it's spreading culture of religious martyrdom) than Africa ever could. I feel a lot safe for knowing that we don't stay out of Middle East affairs and just leave them to it... For me it's like the option of either leaving the doors locked and hoping we don't have burglars or having police and a burglar alarm as deterrants and warning signals before it all kicks off. Two of my mates in the armed forces see world war spreading from the Middle East in the next 5/10 years and I firmly agree with them (unfortunately).

We (including America) seem damned if we do and damned if we don't -- however I'd much rather we do than sit back and do nothing.....