Starting pistol fired for tony's next war.
Thread Starter
Starting pistol fired for tony's next war.
Our wonderful Foreign Sec has just declared on Channel 4 news that " Iran has a history of " concealment and dishonesty". Did I just hear a starting pistol being fired.
Unfortunately Mr Bliar and his group of exceedingly poor colleagues may have just started something the we may not be able stop.
I fear for the future, following the words spoken tonight and for the people that I know still serving in HM Forces.
Unfortunately Mr Bliar and his group of exceedingly poor colleagues may have just started something the we may not be able stop.
I fear for the future, following the words spoken tonight and for the people that I know still serving in HM Forces.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Starting pistol fired for tony's next war.
I don't know, you might be able to get persian carpets at a bargain. And Iranian women always feature high up on FHM's international babe list.
Oh, I can't back up that last one.
Oh, I can't back up that last one.
Re: Starting pistol fired for tony's next war.
As someone said on TV recently. Countries to the eass and west of them are occupied with American and other forces. Israel, Pakistan and India have 'Nasties' should they not be worried.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Starting pistol fired for tony's next war.
Just so long as you don't hear a well known president say "They have weapons of mass destruction and we know where they are"
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chiswick
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Starting pistol fired for tony's next war.
For the last 18 months or so I have been selling Futures Contracts on a possible US/Israeli Airstrike on Iran. However, having enjoyed my run I have now reversed my position and have started buying contracts.
I can not see the Israelis letting Iran produce their own weapon. I suspect had Sharon not suffered his medical emergency then (with subtle US blessing)they would have been on their way to Tehran within the next few months.
What interests me is what will Tony do? Will he stand-aside or will he jump on the US/Israeli band-wagon? To me it appears that we have already started a media push to 'demonise' the Iranians as part of a move to prepare for possible conflict. Time will tell.
I can not see the Israelis letting Iran produce their own weapon. I suspect had Sharon not suffered his medical emergency then (with subtle US blessing)they would have been on their way to Tehran within the next few months.
What interests me is what will Tony do? Will he stand-aside or will he jump on the US/Israeli band-wagon? To me it appears that we have already started a media push to 'demonise' the Iranians as part of a move to prepare for possible conflict. Time will tell.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Starting pistol fired for tony's next war.
I am going to throw a spanner in the works here but before I do, let me get things straight. I am Ex Mil aircrew, I have many friends still in the forces. I support our Armed Forces unequivocally.
I do not however believe that our AF should be made to got to war to salve the conscience or carry out the fickle whims of politicians (yes I know that war was never declared with the Iraqi invasion - that is a pedantic statement made by people who do not have to put their lives on the line).
My spanner is this - Why should Iran not be allowed to pursue other types of power production, rather than relying on fossil fuels? What gives us and the Septics the right to dictate this??
Yes Iran is not the squeakiest clean of countries - but then again neither is Israel without fault - but that is of course a different matter as it suits the UK and USA to overlook those infringments.
America refuses to sign up to the Kyoto (global warming) treaty - now there is a reasoned response from the worlds richest country - yet they won't allow other countries to develop clean fuel.
If our intelligence capabilities are as good as Bush and Blair claim when they are happy to take us to war, then surely they are good enough to know the difference between aggresive nuclear development and peaceful??
If the answer to that is "no, the intelligence is not geood enough to delineate between the two", then surely they cannot take us to war as they will be admitting the intelligence is dodgy, and that any war would be on a 'suspicion' not proof, which is below what is required in a common court of law.
The posturing started a long time ago with Bush making statements eerily similar to those he made about Iraq.
With the greatest respect to our European cousins (just throwing this in as a talking point) - there are certain countries at the heart of Europe who do not have the most exemplary record in fairly recent history, but we allow them to have nuclear options....
Now in no way do I think Iran shoud be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So how do we get round this?? Do the UK and the US give Iran shed loads of money so that they can continue to use fossil fuels and not more efficient clean nuclear fuel - well I can't see that happening!!
I do not however believe that our AF should be made to got to war to salve the conscience or carry out the fickle whims of politicians (yes I know that war was never declared with the Iraqi invasion - that is a pedantic statement made by people who do not have to put their lives on the line).
My spanner is this - Why should Iran not be allowed to pursue other types of power production, rather than relying on fossil fuels? What gives us and the Septics the right to dictate this??
Yes Iran is not the squeakiest clean of countries - but then again neither is Israel without fault - but that is of course a different matter as it suits the UK and USA to overlook those infringments.
America refuses to sign up to the Kyoto (global warming) treaty - now there is a reasoned response from the worlds richest country - yet they won't allow other countries to develop clean fuel.
If our intelligence capabilities are as good as Bush and Blair claim when they are happy to take us to war, then surely they are good enough to know the difference between aggresive nuclear development and peaceful??
If the answer to that is "no, the intelligence is not geood enough to delineate between the two", then surely they cannot take us to war as they will be admitting the intelligence is dodgy, and that any war would be on a 'suspicion' not proof, which is below what is required in a common court of law.
The posturing started a long time ago with Bush making statements eerily similar to those he made about Iraq.
With the greatest respect to our European cousins (just throwing this in as a talking point) - there are certain countries at the heart of Europe who do not have the most exemplary record in fairly recent history, but we allow them to have nuclear options....
Now in no way do I think Iran shoud be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So how do we get round this?? Do the UK and the US give Iran shed loads of money so that they can continue to use fossil fuels and not more efficient clean nuclear fuel - well I can't see that happening!!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Re: Starting pistol fired for tony's next war.
Extract from Stratfor forecast for 2006:
Iran is a country that has also learned lessons from North Korea -- and from other great powers. Approaching the United States with a smile and handshake works, but not nearly as well as approaching it with a smile, handshake and a possible nuclear weapon. Iraq remains the Iranian obsession. Events are not going poorly for Iran there, but not nearly as well as Tehran had hoped. The United States appears to have created a dynamic that will prevent Iraq from becoming an Iranian satellite. The Iranians want to have leverage in Iraq and, in the worst case, want something with which to threaten the United States.
Iran understands that it will not be able to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon -- as opposed to a nuclear device too large or fragile to deploy -- without the United States or Israel taking it out. Israel does not want to carry out the strike. Indeed, no effective strike might be possible on Iranian weapons facilities except nuclear attack. Israel wants two things. First, that Iran stop at a line before it has a deployable weapon. Second, that if it does not do so, that the United States, or NATO, carry the burden. That may or may not happen, but one geopolitical constant must be taken seriously: Israel will not permit Iran to deploy nuclear weapons.
Iran knows this. It has three possible strategies. First, hope that Israeli or American intelligence misses the development of weapons until after they are deployed, giving Iran a deterrent. Second, hope for an Israeli attack in order to position themselves in the Islamic world as the real leader and victim of the anti-Zionist struggle. Third, carefully approach the line of deployability without crossing it.
We suspect that the third option is the Iranian strategy. The problem with the strategy is it assumes that the United States and Israel are both seeing the same thing as the Iranians, which assumes that they have not only excellent intelligence but trust its excellence. The United States will have trouble with that assumption, while the Israelis have so much at stake that they will have a much lower trigger point. In short, the possibilities of miscalculation in the Iranian situation are substantial. The unintended rather than the intended consequence is the most dangerous......
Iran is a country that has also learned lessons from North Korea -- and from other great powers. Approaching the United States with a smile and handshake works, but not nearly as well as approaching it with a smile, handshake and a possible nuclear weapon. Iraq remains the Iranian obsession. Events are not going poorly for Iran there, but not nearly as well as Tehran had hoped. The United States appears to have created a dynamic that will prevent Iraq from becoming an Iranian satellite. The Iranians want to have leverage in Iraq and, in the worst case, want something with which to threaten the United States.
Iran understands that it will not be able to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon -- as opposed to a nuclear device too large or fragile to deploy -- without the United States or Israel taking it out. Israel does not want to carry out the strike. Indeed, no effective strike might be possible on Iranian weapons facilities except nuclear attack. Israel wants two things. First, that Iran stop at a line before it has a deployable weapon. Second, that if it does not do so, that the United States, or NATO, carry the burden. That may or may not happen, but one geopolitical constant must be taken seriously: Israel will not permit Iran to deploy nuclear weapons.
Iran knows this. It has three possible strategies. First, hope that Israeli or American intelligence misses the development of weapons until after they are deployed, giving Iran a deterrent. Second, hope for an Israeli attack in order to position themselves in the Islamic world as the real leader and victim of the anti-Zionist struggle. Third, carefully approach the line of deployability without crossing it.
We suspect that the third option is the Iranian strategy. The problem with the strategy is it assumes that the United States and Israel are both seeing the same thing as the Iranians, which assumes that they have not only excellent intelligence but trust its excellence. The United States will have trouble with that assumption, while the Israelis have so much at stake that they will have a much lower trigger point. In short, the possibilities of miscalculation in the Iranian situation are substantial. The unintended rather than the intended consequence is the most dangerous......
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Close to ABIW
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Starting pistol fired for tony's next war.
Guys, this topic alarms me and I can't see any happy outcome. I think that as time progresses and the situation worsens there could be a nuclear accident at the main site of production. This was actually caused by an unadmitted missile delivery or nuke tipped Tomahawk.... Drastic means
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Too far North - hardly a RAF base that isn't these days...
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do they have F14s, plural, or is it down to just one yet?!
I think it more likely they'll use some of those ex-iraqi 'gifts' from a few years back, MiG 29s and Su 27s?
I think it more likely they'll use some of those ex-iraqi 'gifts' from a few years back, MiG 29s and Su 27s?
Thread Starter
Afetr listening to Colin Powell on Newsnight last night the fear factor has risen just a little further.
The idea put forward on this thread of a joint US/Israeli strike on Iran fills me with horror. This could trigger a crisis on a level or greater than 1973 oil crisis.
The Russian's have said they are against military action, and have enough of their own trouble's in the southern republic's. China would veto any action in the UN as it would stop their dash for growth in their economy.
We have ask the question have the UK been briefed on intelligence about Iran, we all know how dodgy the Iraq intell was using a 10 yr old PhD theseis as its basis. Was the opposition parties breifed then under Priviy Council rules. ( For non UK people, this is a procedure when selected members of opposition parties are given a no holds barred briefing under conditions of strict secrecy. This enables them, to then state to their respective parties that they have seen the evidence and concur with the findings. This is usually enough to reach a cross party consencus about action to be taken)
The CDS did state that it would taken until late 2006 for UK forces to ready to undertake another large operation.
Iran has made its position clear that they will develop nuclear technology, just as North Korea, India, Pakistan, and other states have done. Maybe just maybe if Iran was offered light water technology, there maybe a way forward.
At the rate this is developing I hope and pray to my God that this is resolved in a manner that all sides can back away from without losing face or we will suffer from the inevitable conflict.
Politicians
The idea put forward on this thread of a joint US/Israeli strike on Iran fills me with horror. This could trigger a crisis on a level or greater than 1973 oil crisis.
The Russian's have said they are against military action, and have enough of their own trouble's in the southern republic's. China would veto any action in the UN as it would stop their dash for growth in their economy.
We have ask the question have the UK been briefed on intelligence about Iran, we all know how dodgy the Iraq intell was using a 10 yr old PhD theseis as its basis. Was the opposition parties breifed then under Priviy Council rules. ( For non UK people, this is a procedure when selected members of opposition parties are given a no holds barred briefing under conditions of strict secrecy. This enables them, to then state to their respective parties that they have seen the evidence and concur with the findings. This is usually enough to reach a cross party consencus about action to be taken)
The CDS did state that it would taken until late 2006 for UK forces to ready to undertake another large operation.
Iran has made its position clear that they will develop nuclear technology, just as North Korea, India, Pakistan, and other states have done. Maybe just maybe if Iran was offered light water technology, there maybe a way forward.
At the rate this is developing I hope and pray to my God that this is resolved in a manner that all sides can back away from without losing face or we will suffer from the inevitable conflict.
Politicians
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that the States have the capability to conduct simultaneous pre-emptive air strike/attack against Iran's facilities; the capability is good enough to assure complete destruction.
However, at what subsequent cost? There would be little or no loss of life or hardware since there would be no requirement to put men on the ground - the aim would be to destroy the nuclear weapon capability. But then, Iran has the capability to push oil prices through the roof, with the potential to seriously damage western economies.
So what's the likely way ahead? The sheer arrogance of the American political scene makes the war strike a distinct possibility, and if limited to air drop alone, I don't see us involved. However, there is the Israeli dimension...
I have often said that the next big nasty would flare up in the ME - Air Pig could well be correct in his reference to the starting pistol.
However, at what subsequent cost? There would be little or no loss of life or hardware since there would be no requirement to put men on the ground - the aim would be to destroy the nuclear weapon capability. But then, Iran has the capability to push oil prices through the roof, with the potential to seriously damage western economies.
So what's the likely way ahead? The sheer arrogance of the American political scene makes the war strike a distinct possibility, and if limited to air drop alone, I don't see us involved. However, there is the Israeli dimension...
I have often said that the next big nasty would flare up in the ME - Air Pig could well be correct in his reference to the starting pistol.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The point Air Pig is that every one is happy for them to have as many reactors as they like. The sole thing asked is that they should not have the ability to produce weapons grade enriched uranium on their own (which is practically useless as a fuel). They wonīt co-operate, which is what is p*ssing off the Russians, who are bending over backwards to guarantee the production of as much fuel as they would require. They insist on being able to produce their own enriched uranium.
They are also refusing to allow the IAEA access to their sites. They have incensed Mohamed ElBaradei, the DG, so much that he has set a deadline and threatened the use of force (Transcript) - something even Saddam didnīt manage to provoke them to do. (The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, and the current dispute dates back to then.)
The present negotiations have been lead by Europe. If this is slowly going to hell in a handbag, itīs not being carried by George Bush...
They are also refusing to allow the IAEA access to their sites. They have incensed Mohamed ElBaradei, the DG, so much that he has set a deadline and threatened the use of force (Transcript) - something even Saddam didnīt manage to provoke them to do. (The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, and the current dispute dates back to then.)
The present negotiations have been lead by Europe. If this is slowly going to hell in a handbag, itīs not being carried by George Bush...
Thread Starter
I doubt that the US would act unilatterally, in concert with the Israeli's is possible but given the political fallout not likely, but her come's Tone, always glad to help.
As I have said before I hope not !!!!!!!!
As I have said before I hope not !!!!!!!!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Front seat of a Mahogany Bomber
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the guys posted a quote from an Israeli general on the banter thread a few weeks ago.
Reporter: "how far would Israel go to stop Iran developing a nuclear capability"
General:"About 2000 miles..."
Good one liner, but you have to fear it has more than a grain of truth.
The only hope I can see is the Iranians agreeing to Putin's offer to process nuclear material for them. That way they get the nuclear power without the nuclear weapon capability.
Reporter: "how far would Israel go to stop Iran developing a nuclear capability"
General:"About 2000 miles..."
Good one liner, but you have to fear it has more than a grain of truth.
The only hope I can see is the Iranians agreeing to Putin's offer to process nuclear material for them. That way they get the nuclear power without the nuclear weapon capability.