Should/Will Britain invade Iran?

[americantrotter]

Is Iran's reacot running? I was under the impression it was not.

[communistworkethic]

Reacot?? Is that a special nuclear physics term?

IIRC Iran does not have a reactor but does have Uranium enrichment facilities so that it can enter teh nuclear power market. So far it has achieved the required 3.5% enrichement level required for the nuclear power industry. It has not reached 90% enrichment which is required for weapons grade Uranium.

This is part of the bigger argument. Iran says it has a right to nuclear power, the West (USA) says it doesn't need it because it has oil and that it must tehrefore be looking at making a weapon. Iran has signed up to the non-proliferation treaty and says it's within its rights to enrich uranium for power. Iran is one of teh most uranium rich countries and ore is very available. They state, and are supported by the likes of the Economist, that it's econimic sense to build reactors rather than rely on oil. The USA says no it's not.

The issue is complicated by various Ayatollah's saying nuclear weapons are/aren't allowed under Islamic law and a few incidents of them allegedly seeking to buy weapons technology, which is a breach of the NPT.

Either way you don't see the USA getting all bullish with Pakistan or N Korea about their nuclear goings on do you?

[superjohnmcginlay]

They had a bit of a rant about N Korea didnt they? Pakistan - dont remember owt being said about them.

[Faran]

Andranik wouldn't be happy. Seriously guys, these patrols are so routine, and the British government wouldn't be acting so benignly unless trespassing ocurred. At least your boys weren't stripped, forced to simulate sex, exposed to violent dogs, or suffered to have electrodes attached to their genitals. What goes on for political prisoners in Iran is the perpetration of the Islamic Republic, but these sailors were taken captive by the Iranian army which treated them much more humanely than occupying forces in Iraq have treated people, who unlike these sailors, should not have been taken prisoner in the first place, despite having much more provocation not to.

As for nuclear power, Iranians will not allow their country to rely on oil and turn into Somalia once it runs out. A byproduct might be a nuclear bomb. Oh well, I trust that even the authorities in Iran won't use a nuclear weapon knowing they would be annihilated and glowing in the dark by the hour's end. So what if one guy (who before he was elected and running his mouth held a position that according to the White House, didn't even have a say in the goings on of Iran), said Israel should be wiped off the map? Terrible and even more stupid than terrible was that comment, yes, but Israel itself has actually wiped a nation off the map (I am aware that Palestine was a mandate of Britain, but a nation is not defined by political demarcations). So did the U.S., wiping out many Indian nations and committing genocide in the process.

The regimes that exist in this world are the fault of all humanity, the Islamic Republic exists because of the efforts of its proponents as well as actions perpetrated by foreign powers. The west has constantly been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East, causing problems, claiming it needs to intervene in order to solve the problems, and worsened said problems. Why not just try staying out? The Iranian people are trying to change their government, a feat they have the desire and impetus accomplish if they don't have to worry about defending their country against the most powerful war machine ever concieved.

If the west's motives were pure (the notion that powerful politicians can be trusted is absolutely absurd), why did they lead a coup against us in 1953, removing our democratic leader and reinstalling that tyrannical king, as soon as the Iranian oil industry was nationalized? Perhaps Arabs and Iranians are genetically inferior and could not establish governments for themselves as benevolent and celestial and condusive to world peace as those of Britain and America.

[Faran]

it is a terrible world where people would advocate sacrificing tens of thousands of lives to retrieve 15 soldiers because of jingoism and nationalism

[TANGODANCER]

it is a terrible world where people would advocate sacrificing tens of thousands of lives to retrieve 15 soldiers because of jingoism and nationalism

Except perhaps in the case of you being parents, family or friends of the said fifteen people involved. Countries are run (or rather manipulated) not by the people but by their leaders. In lots of cases the public think the leaders are barmy. One thing Britain doesn't do is parade captured servicemen/women on national TV or make them lie about anything. That is the time the people become involved and, believe me, the people of Britain despise these actions far more than killing soldiers in open combat. Iran does itself no favours by these actions.

[CrazyHorse]

it is a terrible world where people would advocate sacrificing tens of thousands of lives to retrieve 15 soldiers because of jingoism and nationalism

Yeah.
It's also a terrible world where people would risk sacrificing tens of thousands of lives because they won't release 15 soldiers they illegally captured because they can't read a map properly.

[Lennon]

Except perhaps in the case of you being parents, family or friends of the said fifteen people involved. Countries are run (or rather manipulated) not by the people but by their leaders. In lots of cases the public think the leaders are barmy. One thing Britain doesn't do is parade captured servicemen/women on national TV or make them lie about anything. That is the time the people become involved and, believe me, the people of Britain despise these actions far more than killing soldiers in open combat. Iran does itself no favours by these actions.

Woah there TD! You can't speak for the entire population of Britain. Ok, parading the Royal Navy personnel on tv is an obvious act of propaganda, and I condemn it as much as you, but as long as they're still alive, and apparently in good health, violence is the ultimate last resort. Surely you'd rather see their safe return brought about by diplomatic methods rather than a violent one? If you're right about the majority of the British public, then I'm thankful "the people" don't get to make these decisions.

It's not even been a fortnight since their capture yet. Britain and the US have arrested 'terror suspects' based on little/no evidence, with zero contact allowed with the outside world, and held them for several years before even bringing them to trial.

[TANGODANCER]

Except perhaps in the case of you being parents, family or friends of the said fifteen people involved. Countries are run (or rather manipulated) not by the people but by their leaders. In lots of cases the public think the leaders are barmy. One thing Britain doesn't do is parade captured servicemen/women on national TV or make them lie about anything. That is the time the people become involved and, believe me, the people of Britain despise these actions far more than killing soldiers in open combat. Iran does itself no favours by these actions.

Woah there TD! You can't speak for the entire population of Britain. Ok, parading the Royal Navy personnel on tv is an obvious act of propaganda, and I condemn it as much as you, but as long as they're still alive, and apparently in good health, violence is the ultimate last resort. Surely you'd rather see their safe return brought about by diplomatic methods rather than a violent one? If you're right about the majority of the British public, then I'm thankful "the people" don't get to make these decisions.

It's not even been a fortnight since their capture yet. Britain and the US have arrested 'terror suspects' based on little/no evidence, with zero contact allowed with the outside world, and held them for several years before even bringing them to trial.

Lennon. You seem to make a habit of jumping on my posts. I don't speak for the people, I speak for me and just express my views. From page one of this thread:

So you're advocating sending a few troops into Iran just like that to bring out fifteen sailors who might well have been illegaly trespassing in Iran territory? You want a war on our hands, try it. We just have to hope the government can negotiate a peaceful solution. If they can't, the consequences might be disastrous for everybody. It was only a monitor patrol that went in, not the bloody Ark Royal; surely an appology for trespass would resolve this?

_________________
TANGODANCER

[communistworkethic]

Andranik wouldn't be happy. Seriously guys, these patrols are so routine, and the British government wouldn't be acting so benignly unless trespassing ocurred. At least your boys weren't stripped, forced to simulate sex, exposed to violent dogs, or suffered to have electrodes attached to their genitals. What goes on for political prisoners in Iran is the perpetration of the Islamic Republic, but these sailors were taken captive by the Iranian army which treated them much more humanely than occupying forces in Iraq have treated people, who unlike these sailors, should not have been taken prisoner in the first place, despite having much more provocation not to.

As for nuclear power, Iranians will not allow their country to rely on oil and turn into Somalia once it runs out. A byproduct might be a nuclear bomb. Oh well, I trust that even the authorities in Iran won't use a nuclear weapon knowing they would be annihilated and glowing in the dark by the hour's end. So what if one guy (who before he was elected and running his mouth held a position that according to the White House, didn't even have a say in the goings on of Iran), said Israel should be wiped off the map? Terrible and even more stupid than terrible was that comment, yes, but Israel itself has actually wiped a nation off the map (I am aware that Palestine was a mandate of Britain, but a nation is not defined by political demarcations). So did the U.S., wiping out many Indian nations and committing genocide in the process.

The regimes that exist in this world are the fault of all humanity, the Islamic Republic exists because of the efforts of its proponents as well as actions perpetrated by foreign powers. The west has constantly been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East, causing problems, claiming it needs to intervene in order to solve the problems, and worsened said problems. Why not just try staying out? The Iranian people are trying to change their government, a feat they have the desire and impetus accomplish if they don't have to worry about defending their country against the most powerful war machine ever concieved.

If the west's motives were pure (the notion that powerful politicians can be trusted is absolutely absurd), why did they lead a coup against us in 1953, removing our democratic leader and reinstalling that tyrannical king, as soon as the Iranian oil industry was nationalized? Perhaps Arabs and Iranians are genetically inferior and could not establish governments for themselves as benevolent and celestial and condusive to world peace as those of Britain and America.

Congratulations on confusing several issues.

The fundamental point re the capture of these sailors is where they were. Now which government changed its story having first said they weren't in Iranian waters?

And as for the fact that the sabre rattling has been muted, that's called diplomacy. Sending troops in to Iran would be folly on a number of levels not least the upswell of feeling it would cause amongst Muslim fundamentalists. Which is a bit of an issue with the current tensions and terrorism problems.

Nobody disputes the west has stuck its oar in to the middle east's affairs, or what Britain has done in the past with regard the Empire and instability in Iraq, or that the meddling in the nuclear issue is directly linked to the hypocrisy of the western members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And the treatment of Iraqis captured during a conflict is hardly the concern of a country that spent 10 years killing as many of them as it could.

This is about entering the territorial waters of another counrty, the facts of which are disputed. The crew of a UK vessel was acting legally under a mandate from Iraq's government, if it had strayed in to Iranian waters, and that's avery big IF, then the Captain of the Iraqi vessel could have warned the much smaller boat and escorted it out the area. A lightweight craft with 15 lightly armed crew is not an aggressive invasion force. Whether or not there was an incursion the reaction of Iran was far in excess of anything needed.

[Lennon]

Lennon. You seem to make a habit of jumping on my posts. I don't speak for the people, I speak for me and just express my views. From page one of this thread:

So you're advocating sending a few troops into Iran just like that to bring out fifteen sailors who might well have been illegaly trespassing in Iran territory? You want a war on our hands, try it. We just have to hope the government can negotiate a peaceful solution. If they can't, the consequences might be disastrous for everybody. It was only a monitor patrol that went in, not the bloody Ark Royal; surely an appology for trespass would resolve this?

_________________
TANGODANCER

We appear to have strong differing views on various subjects, or maybe I'm subconsciously stalking you.

I was just commenting on your statement that "the people of Britain despise these actions [showing the captured troops on television] far more than killing soldiers in open combat." As a British person, I don't.

On a related, if slightly irrelevant note - my best mate (who I class as my brother for various reasons) is serving on HMS Cornwall at the moment. When the story first broke, I was worried that he might be one of the captured personnel, as were his mum and dad who I'm also close with, so I'm not totally detached from the events.

[TANGODANCER]

We appear to have strong differing views on various subjects, or maybe I'm subconsciously stalking you. .

Don't mind the argument, quite enjoy them, but if you're stalking, don't follow me down any dark alleys.

[Lennon]

We appear to have strong differing views on various subjects, or maybe I'm subconsciously stalking you. .

Don't mind the argument, quite enjoy them, but if you're stalking, don't follow me down any dark alleys.

There's nothing wrong with a good debate. I sometimes play devils advocate though as I find you learn more that way, rather than when everyone in the discussion wholeheartedly agrees.

As for following you down dark alleys, I'll stay away as long as you send me a signed photograph of yourself with some body hair cellotaped to it...

[TANGODANCER]

[. As for following you down dark alleys, I'll stay away as long as you send me a signed photograph of yourself with some body hair cellotaped to it...

Voodo you think you're talking to?

[Montreal Wanderer]

it is a terrible world where people would advocate sacrificing tens of thousands of lives to retrieve 15 soldiers because of jingoism and nationalism

I don't think any one is advocated that too seriously - certainly not the government. Clearly the approach is diplomacy, followed by sanctions. Your view that this took place in Iranian waters ("Seriously guys, these patrols are so routine, and the British government wouldn't be acting so benignly unless trespassing ocurred.") is, forgive me, extremely simplistic. Your are saying that if Britain was right they would have reacted more aggressively - basically in an excess of jingoism and nationalism. See the contradiction in your views?

As a resident of a peace loving country (the last time we declared war was in 1939 against Germany and since then our forces have only served under UN mandates, usually peace-keeping) I can view this matter more dispassionately. Iran lost a great deal of credibility by changing its mind about where the incident took place after their first position turned out to be in Iraqi waters. The fact that the captured soldiers apologized for trespass is absolutely meaningless since they would not know precisely where they were. The balance of probability in the view of the world is that they were in Iraqi waters. However, even if they crossed the line the Iranian forces should have warned them off not captured them and put them on TV. I think this whole matter has more to do with the UN concern about the Iranian nuclear program than it does about a border.

[chris]

The Iranians are now saying they will be released:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 525905.stm

[Montreal Wanderer]

The Iranians are now saying they will be released:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 525905.stm

The propaganda value having been used up, no doubt. A predictable but fortunate ending. I shall watch what the service people say about their 'confessions' with interest.

[The Bullett]

I can't wait for Andranik to be caught offside on Saturday

Just remember he's an Armenian Christian and not a member of the Imperial guard. While I agree it would be nice to hear from one of our Iranian posters, they do have to be a little circumspect in offering political views.

Is this a side swipe at muslims? "they do have to be a little circumspect in offering political views"..why?

As a brit, i dont believe a word the British government have been telling us over this issue. It's not the first time this has happened. If the British had acted with a little humility, this would have been over much sooner. The way the media portrays Iran as some backward lunatic asylum is beyond me. The way they whip people so easily into a frenzy is incredible. There was never any danger to their lives. I do think Iran have handled the issue rather better than us. I await the next round of propaganda regarding their treatment.

For the personnel involved, at least they can go home...in their shiny new suits.

[InsaneApache]

I can't wait for Andranik to be caught offside on Saturday

Just remember he's an Armenian Christian and not a member of the Imperial guard. While I agree it would be nice to hear from one of our Iranian posters, they do have to be a little circumspect in offering political views.

Is this a side swipe at muslims? "they do have to be a little circumspect in offering political views"..why?

As a brit, i dont believe a word the British government have been telling us over this issue. It's not the first time this has happened. If the British had acted with a little humility, this would have been over much sooner. The way the media portrays Iran as some backward lunatic asylum is beyond me. The way they whip people so easily into a frenzy is incredible. There was never any danger to their lives. I do think Iran have handled the issue rather better than us. I await the next round of propaganda regarding their treatment.

For the personnel involved, at least they can go home...in their shiny new suits.

I bet you read the Greuniard and eat musli.......

[Montreal Wanderer]

I can't wait for Andranik to be caught offside on Saturday

Just remember he's an Armenian Christian and not a member of the Imperial guard. While I agree it would be nice to hear from one of our Iranian posters, they do have to be a little circumspect in offering political views.

Is this a side swipe at muslims? "they do have to be a little circumspect in offering political views"..why?

No, it has nothing to do with Muslims. It has to do with the need for dissidents to be circumspect in countries where the penalties for disagreeing with governments can be harsh and there is little respect for privacy of communications. People who post here can possibly be traced and could be penalized for the 'disloyal' or 'treasonous' views uttered. It would be true under white Christian fascists and or atheistic communist regimes, as well as Islamic theocracies. You are fortunate to have been brought up in a liberal democracy where you can express disagreement with official policies - so was I. Yet it is a privilege we enjoy because, inter alia, our servicemen have protected it regardless of how new or shiny their suits are. If you don't understand that others are not in the same fortunate position of being able to express their opinions freely, then you are very naive. I was merely suggesting that people do not take out their anger at the Iranian government's action on any Iranian they happen to know - such as Ando - regardless of religion.

Edit: I've just looked up some stats. According to Amnesty International most executions takes place in China. Second highest in the world is Iran, where stoning and hanging are employed, third is Saudi Arabia and fourth is the good old US of A. These account for 94% of all known executions in the world. In 2006 Iran executed 4 children and, since 1990, is the world leader in this regard. Frankly I'd be circumspect.

Iran was the only country known to Amnesty International to have executed juvenile offenders in 2005. Iran executed at least eight people in 2005 for crimes committed when they were children, including two who were still under the age of 18 at the time of their execution. The USA banned the execution of juvenile offenders in March 2005 having previously been a "world leader" in the practice.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engACT500092006

In Iran, the death penalty is imposed for homicide, armed robbery, rape, blasphemy, apostasy, conspiring against the government, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, and drug-related crimes, for example, the possession of 30 grammes of heroin or 5 kilos of opium.

http://ipsnews.net/new_focus/deathpenal ... death2.asp
Teenaged women are on death row for stabbing rapists. Homosexuality a capital crime? Converting to another faith? Well, there you go.