Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 10th March 2006
Hi all,
It's looks pretty likely that we are in the next few years going to be sending the Army to Iran to overthrow their "religious theocracy" and enforce the UN's will that Iran doesn't have nukes.
Can I ask the following questions for people to respond to, shout about and even to rant about but in an intelligent manner.
Q.1 Do you think we are right to go to a country that has picked of it's own free will a theocratic government and overthrow it?
Q.2 What excatly has Iran done to violate the NPT? I though the whole point of the NPT was to ensure you didn't spread exisiting nuclear technology - Iran hasn't said it would but it might want some nuclear weapons (and don't we all - an SS-20 in the garden would surely shut the neighbour's dog up
Q.3 Can we win a war in Iran when a lot of the population will actively resist the "Allied Invasion Force"?
Q.4 Will "the west" invading Iran make it more likely that nuclear weapons will be used? After all the USAF is pioneering small tactical nuclear weapons for use against protected sites e.g. underground weapon stores - exactly the kind of thing Iran must have scattered all over the mountain ranges for it's hi-tech weapons.
Looking forward to your comments.
NewcFalconLink to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 2
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 10th March 2006
Gulf War IV?????
What happened to Gulf War III?Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 3
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 10th March 2006
Gulf War I = in my mind is Iraq Vs Iran.
Gulf War II = Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
Gulf War III = "Shock and Awe" - what we are going thru at the minute
Gulf War IV = the future operations against Iran by "the west".Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 4
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 10th March 2006
Q.1 Do you think we are right to go to a country that has picked of its own free will a theocratic government and overthrow it?
Μύ
No. We would have no legal mandate to invade Iran. Although that was also part of the argument with the Iraq invasion as well. To invade Iran would be to set a dangerous precedent that no country is sovereign within its own borders and that the Great Powers (or the International Community as they now like to be called) have yet to move on from the C19th when such invasions were the order of the day whereby we maintained our primacy over other nations when we thought they were getting a little above themselves.
Q.2 What exactly has Iran done to violate the NPT? I though the whole point of the NPT was to ensure you didn't spread existing nuclear technology - Iran hasn't said it would but it might want some nuclear weapons (and don't we all - an SS-20 in the garden would surely shut the neighbour's dog up
Μύ
Not too sure on this point, but as my understanding goes; Iran (unlike India) was a signatory to the NNPT. This means that they promised that they were not going to pursue any form of nuclear ambition. They are clearly in violation of that, but does the violation of such a treaty warrant invasion? If someone has willingly joined a club, they must have the freedom of choice to also leave it
Q.3 Can we win a war in Iran when a lot of the population will actively resist the "Allied Invasion Force"?
Μύ
This is a tricky question. Iran is a large mountainous country with a large population. The battle for the hearts and minds would be vital; it is also a battle I would expect the west to lose. Whilst at the moment there might not be the same vociferous hatred of the west in Iran as there was in 1979 an invasion would whip up quite quickly a nationalistic/religious firestorm that I think we here in the west would find hard to counter or even handle. We would also run the risk of encouraging the Shia population of Iraq to rise up in support for their Shia brothers across the border, therefore further destabilising the region again
Q.4 Will "the west" invading Iran make it more likely that nuclear weapons will be used? After all the USAF is pioneering small tactical nuclear weapons for use against protected sites e.g. underground weapon stores - exactly the kind of thing Iran must have scattered all over the mountain ranges for it's hi-tech weapons.
Μύ
It would be a brave General and an even braver politician to order any nuclear weapons being used. There is no such thing as a βsmallβ or a βtacticalβ nuke. Iran borders the ex Soviet Union, it also borders Pakistan. Both areas have nuclear weapons. In addition, we only have to remember Chernobyl, which caused such mayhem in the 1980βs. The use of such weapons would result in such horror in the ME with people suffering the effects for a long time. Can we really afford such a legacy? Also if and its still a BIG if whatever the Americans like to say, IF Iran has nukes and the feels threatened then of course they have nothing to lose by using them. If the American public gets antsy over 1000 coffins (I forget the actual body count, my apologies) can you imagine the furore over several thousands IN ONE GO!!!. It would be enough to force one of two options, 1) The POTUS would be gone, forced out of office in a heartbeat and a peace treaty signed within weeks or 2) the good ole US of A goes nuclear themselves as then they are the respondents and not the protagonists (nuclear at least) and if that happened then the Middle East would go toLink to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 5
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 10th March 2006
Gulf War I = in my mind is Iraq Vs Iran.
Gulf War II = Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
Gulf War III = "Shock and Awe" - what we are going thru at the minute
Gulf War IV = the future operations against Iran by "the west".Μύ
ahh, I hadn't considered the Iran/Iraq one to be counted, but yes using that as a proxy war by the west against a state we did not wish to exist would def countLink to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 6
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 10th March 2006
Good points all round Richie - all makes sense and I'm looking for opinions not point scoring on the issue.
I reckon it would be a massive leap of faith on behalf of the politcians - after all they talked most of us into supporting Iraq because of "WMD's" and if they even thought for a second Iran had them and had the systems to deliver them then why didn't they say we want to invade Iran first? Surely they msut have believed the people would support that rather than the "non-existant" threat in Iraq?
People might be suckers for lies sometime but if it turns out the politco's were right and they had found a working missile system (even if not a nuke) in an Iranian cave I think people would have been grateful for them doing something about it.
I think a lot of the reasons for Iraq was the abundance of evidence that Saddam was "an evil dictator" and the fact we knew that the Kurds wouldn't rise up in the way that Sunni's and Shia'a are and the Kurds wouldn't try to get a "Kurdistan" out of the issue.
On a seprate but related note ---
The Kurds must be laughing at the rest of Iraq tearing itself apart - they get the Kurdish part of Iraq for free (the West will pay for rebuilding, defense, education etc.) and then when we trash Iran they'll get that part of "Kurdistan" too - after a few years in amove of Hitlerian deceit and profiteering they'll make enough noise to the international community that Turkey will have to cede the parts of Turkey that are "Kurdish" and then "Greater Kurdistan" will be born.Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 7
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Friday, 10th March 2006
We do have a right to invade Iran. If they are a threat to us, it would be quite unimpressive not to do anything about the whole thing.
Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 8
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 10th March 2006
But kind of threat - is it just a threat of "we'll turn off the oil if you impose sanctions" or is it a fully-blown "we know you are bulding nuclear weapons and so we shall invade you to protect ourselves" - if Israel think Iran is a threat then fine let them go a head and do something about it then fine - ditto the rest of the Middle-East.
North Korea is a threat and I don't see 2 and 3 Para landing in Pongjyang and 42 Commando landing on the North Korean coast seeking to depose Kim Jong-Il.
Pakistan is a threat to India and vice-versa but as one is a democracy and that's what most Indians want and the other is a key ally in "the war on terror" we do nothing again.
I know the world is more than black and white bur the only winner out of us banging our heads against the mid-east brick wall is China I think.Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 9
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Friday, 10th March 2006
Falcon,
I find it interesting that you consider the Iran-Iraq war as the furst gulf war. Perhaps it's also arguable to consider the Iran-Iraq war and Desert shield/storm as the same war.
I am not convinced that your title was not a typo, though.
If we invade Iran, I for one will see it as part of the same war as the invasion of Iraq, for reasons that will become obvious towards the end of my post.
A1; If we overthrow the theocracy, it wont be because it's a theocracy, but because it is trying to make nukes. Secondly, I'd suggest the phrasing of your first question implies more faith in Iranian democracy than is appropriate. That it is theocratic is almost beside the point, though we westerners no doubt harbour more concerns over the idea of a theocracy having nukes than a democratic country (obvious case in point- Israel).
A2; can't say exactly, and I wish I could. If you read Iranian newspapers, they claim it hasn't (on this point, google 'Iranian Times' for a some light entertainment). The Iranians have acted suspiciously though, and since the IAEA reckons they're trying to build nukes- i.e. there is solid enough evidence- I believe this.
A3; Part of the answer to this question is in A1; what we don't know is to what extent the Iranians will back their regime. The irony here is that this whole business seems to have increased the popularity of what is a corrupt, nasty theocracy with it's own people.
There are two things we can learn from Iraq here, however. The first is that, even if the Iranians prove more dedicated than their Iraqi counterparts, they won't be able to put up much of a fight. Secondly, though, it seems that there only need be a minority determined to destabilise the country in the aftermath. Therefore in almost any conditions we are unlikely to be able to win the peace.
A4; My initial reaction is no. I doubt the US would feel the need to use nukes, and I can't imagine the PR would be too good if they did. Unfortunately I think the Iranians with nukes probably are a threat.
I was against the War in Iraq, but I will support the invasion of Iran. This may seem contradictory, but I essentially take the view that we have made our bed and now we have to lie in it. We should not have invaded Iraq, since Saddam never posed us a threat. But, since we have, Iran WILL pose us a threat, in the form of nukes.
The war on terror, which we needlessy conflagrated by invading Iraq, has now got out of our control, in the sense that we can no longer pick and choose where we fight it. Now we are seeing why we should never have gone to war in the first place. And yet, since we have, we have no choice but to follow the war through to it's logical conclusion. This means doing to Iran- and any other islamic country that is hostile to us- what we did to Iraq. Yes, this sounds far-fetched at the moment, and yet this is one of ONLY 2 ways I can see in which the War on Terror can be won. Where it will lead us I don't know; Syria? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?
The second way in which we can win it is by hitting Iran so hard that it will permanently convince other Middle Eastern countries that it is unwise in the extreme to mess with the west. And they'd better democratise too. In which case, we clearly haven't won the war yet, as Iran's case proves- never mind the rest.
I remind you that none of this would be necessary if we hadn't invaded Iraq. The Iraq war supporters would do well in future to heed the maxim 'don't start a fight that you can't win'. Whether we can win it remains to be seen.Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 10
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 10th March 2006
I consider the Iran-Iraq war Gulf War I because it only really involved Iran and Iraq and other nations only involved themselves by proxy.
I don't consider it the same as Des. Shield/Storm because that war had a clearly defined goal of getting the Iraqi's out of Kuwait.
I think a lot of what you say has merits and some of it I don't agree with but that's fair enough in the main. Not posting to get dogmatic approval just to find out people's opinions.
I guess we shall just have to wait and see - if Iran turns the Oil of to the West I wonder if China will step in to pick up Iran's surplus production at a knock down price?Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 11
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Friday, 10th March 2006
But kind of threat - is it just a threat of "we'll turn off the oil if you impose sanctions" or is it a fully-blown "we know you are bulding nuclear weapons and so we shall invade you to protect ourselves" - if Israel think Iran is a threat then fine let them go a head and do something about it then fine - ditto the rest of the Middle-East.
North Korea is a threat and I don't see 2 and 3 Para landing in Pongjyang and 42 Commando landing on the North Korean coast seeking to depose Kim Jong-Il.
Pakistan is a threat to India and vice-versa but as one is a democracy and that's what most Indians want and the other is a key ally in "the war on terror" we do nothing again.
I know the world is more than black and white bur the only winner out of us banging our heads against the mid-east brick wall is China I think.
Μύ
See, this is why I think the Commonwealth should be stronger!!Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 12
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 10th March 2006
Hi Old Hermit - glad to see you hermitting around (if that's what hermits do).
I see your point re; this point - a strong Commonwealth would hopefully stop India and Pakistan blowing each other up.
The ME is a mess and I don't know what we could do about it - maybe as I've suggested before the Mid-East should form a union with an Islamic peace keeping force that all the nations there would be happy with and let them get on with it.Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 13
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
It is certainly ironic to hear Bush/Blair moaning about countries, which invade others(!) follwoed by appeals to the UN and int law. Israel has the bomb by virtue of not even signing up to the NPT and the lesson the Iranians took from the Iraq war was that if you have nukes (like North Korea), you don't get attacked, but if you don't like Iraq, you will get attacked.
Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 14
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
At least if BLiar/Brown support Bush then it will split the Labour party wide open and get them out of power. Even they will find it difficult to lie and spin their way out of a war with Iran.
I wonder what the answer you would get from the average person in the street to the question "would you prefer Iran with nuclear weapons or high petrol prices and petrol shortages?" I suspect that most would accept Iran with nuclear weapons.
I have heard many people say that you can hardly blame them wanting a nuclear deterrent when they have two countries occupied by the USA alongside them (that is how they see it) and another strongly influenced by the USA on the other side. One neighbour with nuclear weapons and a couple of others not too far away.
It is a pity the US is not putting as much energy into trying to get rid of the Israeli nuclear weapons.
MBLink to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 15
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
I agree with you that people would rather have cheap fuel than Iran with nukes.
I think people have seen that nukes so far have stopped wars excalting - after all all the tense relations between India and Pakistan have never really since both went "nuclear" came to war. Is that point proven?
But if Iran does say "No oil" they will need to sell it somewhere. That somewhere could be China and for $40 a barrel to get rid of the stuff and then screw about with the "free" oil market - now that would be a good strategy in my humble opinion.Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 16
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
Yes - and it is worth bearing in mind that MAD (mutually assured destruction) kept the peace in Europe for 45 years. The yanks seem to think they can bully whom they like, but when someone retaliates, then, no, that can't be allowed! Nothing like White House double standards, is there?
Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 17
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
Surely if it did come to war Iran could just destroy their oil-wells in a suicidal act of bravery - if they still have nukes it'd be upo to the USA to persue their action - if they then stand down we'd know it was all about the oil.
Makes you wonder how the Saudi's feel.
But I wonder what would happen if (as I read a while back) Osama turned up at Mecca and preached his version of Islam to the faithful and they thought "hey you've got a point" as after all they'll be worried that their privilages and rank through their religious practices are under threat from "democracy".Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 18
Posted by Duncnaray1983 (U3451123) on Saturday, 11th March 2006
hi all
i think that if Iran gose head to ead with the west and rest of the world, and the us will strike 2 stop Iran having nukes, the world would be outraged but secrtealy they wuld be glad that the US sorted out Iran,
I belive that Iran will say it has developed nukes in 5years time and america with its new advance warfare system wil go 2 work and show the rest of the world its future warefare system which will wipe out Iran by using technology/less manpwer/satilites high percison wepons and anti nuclear cappalties which the pentagon has plus the new auroa fast strike jet!
If iran dose then nuke isreal and Isreal wuld then nuke the whole of iran , thus sorting out Iran
So iran has to back down or face total anholation or face certian doom
Coz America is the worlds only super power and you dont wana stand off with a 300 blastic missles pointed at your country and I belive if america felt that threated it wuld nuke ItranLink to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 19
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
you dont wana stand off with a 300 blastic missles pointed at your country and I belive if america felt that threated it wuld nuke ItranΜύ
If you think that then you are a fool. The reason that no one has gone nuclear is because there is always someone else with nukes. The one time a bomb has been used in anger was when there was only one nuclear power. There are far too many consequences to the USA using WMD in a war with Iran, least of all the environmental ones.Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 20
Posted by Ryan_Murton (U3458704) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
Amazing post people. I am only a young age yet i love War and Military etc. Im still at school and read everyones posts on Iran. I do agree War will be needed. Yet this is only my opinion , So please dont now jump at me. Iran are very defiant yet they do say America Will have "Pain" And threatened to make Isreal disappear. So what does this say to you?. I think a World war 3 is very very close. Russia and China could maybe Stand up for Iran and it isn't like they are weak countries. Iran having the 3rd Biggest Army In the World isn't good either. Nowadays most of it is Technology nowadays but Manpower is still something isn't it?. Do you think that if Great Britain and America threw absoulutly everything at Someone... it will cause destruction and they are Indistructable really? I do also other strong countries including France etc. Also NATO would be involved. All serious but WW3 Is soon. West v Middle East. Before i die Around 2080. I would bet my life savings at a bookies on it . Thank you very much and Please reply.
Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 21
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Sunday, 12th March 2006
Ryan, interesting post, I think you are right we will see more conflict between the west and the middle east in our lifetimes. Iran I take for granted- where next I don't know.
Have you a link saying Iran has the 3rd biggest army? I hadn't heard that before...Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 22
Posted by uberaznspy (U3462681) on Monday, 13th March 2006
yes absolutly corret ww3 will be with china no doubts whatsoever they are communist and are big and if i fight in ww3 i will have no doubts that we will lose NO DOUBTS JESUS ITS LIEK VIETNAM EXCEPT THERES A POINT TO IT IM GOIN CRAZY IM A WAR HUNGRY FOOL MUAHAHAHAHAH!
Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
-
Message 23
Posted by uberaznspy (U3462681) on Monday, 13th March 2006
no iran has a piddly army jeez who fed u dat bs man? anyway i think war is bad but nessisary cos then yanks cud break in and push us around then id get so postal2 on there butts ^^
Link to this forum: Iran - Gulf War 4 - this time we go nuclear.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.