khany

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4204945.stm

As above, should we send our troops into Iran if the US and Israel decide to?

I think its just a matter of time before the US decide that Iran is next on their hit list of 'axis of evil' countries. Even if they dont initiate the attack they will support Israel who will definatly attack, just a matter of when.

I hope Mr Blair learns from Iraq.

OllyK

Seeing as the US military policy is that the US should be able to fight in at least 2 major conflicts at any one time, I hardly think that Iraq and Afganistan combined constitue even a single major conflict and will act as little deterant to the bible bashing Bush and his axis of non-christian desctruction.

I suspect the US will go blundering in with no thought about how the hell Iran will be run after the smash the place to bits and will spend the next 20 years policing most of the middle east and shooting the rest of it. I am sure their buddies Israel would love to get in on a bit of "rag" bashing given the chance

Roll on World War 3!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

SHOULD we go in? No!

WILL we go in if the USA does? If Labour win the next election, almost certainly, yes

Alcazar

Flatcapdriver

If you believe the Government's stance towards Iran then the statements they've made would suggest otherwise.

OllyK

Lol - and you think you have found a statement they won't U-turn on when it suits them?

Flatcapdriver

They don't have a good track record of keeping their promises I agree, but in this instance I can't see how they'd pull it off without a massive majority in Parliament which despite the Tory's best efforts I don't think Labour will enjoy in this parliamentary session.

Personally, if it were to happen then we would be pulled into a conflict that will last for the next twenty years or so and it's not a conflict that we would neccessarily win - either militarily or politically. If Israel got involved, then what little goodwill that exists in the Middle East towards the West would evaporate and the likes of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc would be pulled in whether they liked it or not and it wouldn't be on the West's side.

Too much of a gamble I believe.

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

What the heck....lets blow up a few more hundred thousand people up

Unfortunatley Blair is Bushs b1tch and will do as he says

OllyK

Oh I agree, there isn't a single good reason to go in to Iran, but if Bush asks, Blair will say how many troops do you want?

Flatcapdriver

Well, I hope you're wrong. British forces are overstretched as it is and any gaps that got plugged as a result of utilising forces from Iraq will simply result in a power vacuum which will only make the situation worse.

OllyK

And Bush has "jeeezus" a fightin' in his corner and the righteous will surely be victorious!

OllyK

I do too. Thank goodness I left the TA, but if they start running low on cannon fodder I expect I'll be near the top of the list of civillians to get "asked to voluenteer". Time to accelerate plans to buy a place in France methinks.

SJ_Skyline

Team America - World Police!!

Bad bad idea - Iran is a much different environment to Iraq. It has a land area aproximately 1.6 million sqyare Km - 3 to 4 times that of Iraq. Its also extremely mountainous with some peaks at over 3000 metres.

I think the main US/Israeli panic is that they believe as soon as Iran develops a nuclear device it will be the end of Israel as Iran already posesses the missile technology to reach Israel. It most likely will only take one nuclear strike on Jerusalem or Tel-Aviv to end the Israeli state.

So on one hand you have a war they would start and couldn't win. On the other hand they wait, play the political game and may lose in the end. I wouldn't be surprised if they play a 3rd hand and have a go at assasinating the Iranian scientists, mind you its not as if this would be publicised!

All IMHO of course!


Edit: better maps!!
http://www.mideastweb.org/Iran.gif
http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq.gif

ChavSaz

Just NUKE them ALL

Nah we shouldnt go and waste our taxes!

Brit_in_Japan

MAD

Mutually
Assured
Destruction

North Korea have nuclear weapons and the missiles necessary to deliver them to S Korea or indeed any part of Japan. Just because they have a nuclear weapons does not mean they will use them, the Americans would obliterate them. If they didn't have nuclear weapons then the US would probably have already invaded by now, one less "axis of evil".

Same view could be taken if Iran gets nuclear weapons. They aren't likely to attack Israel, they have I think the 5th or 6th largest nuclear arsenal in the world and Iran would surely be totally destroyed in retaliation.

It's probably the case that because Iran feels threatened by the US they feel they need a nuclear deterrant.

chicken-egg-egg-chicken

EvilKyote

No i don't think we should enter into another conflict. I think that America has done more to jepordise world stability at this point than anything else. If they invade Iran, then I think that the people on here joking about world war 3 will realise that is actaully happened.

Have you stood back and looked at the bigger picture. Has anyone noticed the similarities to america's actions and the actions of the ****'s in Germany? The way America has invaded 2 countries and looking to possibly invade a 3rd and a 4th maybe.... why does that patern look so farmiliar to the pattern seen by the ***** in the begining of WW2?!

How far is it going to go?! America can't keep 'pre-emtively stiking' other nations in the name of world stability, they are more likely to throw the world into a much worse and dangerous 'WW3'. an considering how many nations now have a substantial nuclear capability, although we would be reluctant to use them, I can't see the middle eastern countried being quite so restrained.

CrisPDuk

The longer this goes on, the more I struggle to see the difference between George Bush and his 'pre-emptive' invasions, and Richard I and the crusades.

They're both about the same things, stealing land and power, and keeping the barbarian hordes at bay.

Right from the beginning the Americans have objected to ANYONE else having nuclear capability,and that includes their supposed allies the British, and to a lesser extent the French. It essentially boils down to control, once a country has a nuclear capability, it is no longer dependent on the US for protection. Conversely,countries that do not fall into line with the US's way of doing things have a better chance of keeping them out if they have nuclear weapons.

gsm1

I think your location descrip says it all.

There's very little chance USA will do anything that means occupying Iran with US troops because they are already overstretched and American public opinion is turning against the Iraq war every day already. At the most there may be some military strikes by them or Israel.

Jack Straw has already indicated that policy towards Iran will be nothing like Iraq and of course it could never be after the disaster that is Iraq.

Jerome

I'm rather glad that becuase of the type of call up in 2003, I can't be called up again until long after I'm no longer "on the books". After that, let them try and call me up in Canada.

I'm fairly sure if they invade anywhere, Iran, N.Korea etc, the govt will have to make use of large numbers of Reservists/TA personnel again.

AsifScoob

Totally agree!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

First, they have to get in Then watch

IIRC, the majority of the population were against us going into Iraq too.

Alcazar

Leslie

Certainly not. We have got a big enough mess on our hands from the last war. This sort of action would trigger off an uncontrollable situation.

Les

Flatcapdriver

Funnily enough, Bush got slaughtered in the press when he mentioned the word "crusade" when he first mooted the invasion of Iraq and then quickly backtracked as his aides rushed to brief against his turn of phrase.


That's the luxury of being a superpower and however unpalatable it is, Britain, the Romans and every other superpower that has gone before was just as likely to weild a big stick. Personally, I favour a balance of power and the sooner China or India are in a position to challenge and balance out the power that the US currently enjoys the happier I'll be. Much in the same way that I hope the Tories take a chunk out of Labour's majority.

Nimbus

I don't think a full scale invasion is ever going to be likely. It's the development of nuclear weapons that's the issue. If anything did happen, I suspect it will be an airstrike (with special ops involvment) in destryoing the reactors and enrichment sites along with as many nuclear research techs as they can. Iseral can't do this on it's own. It does not have the equipment to fly that length of mission.