Iran

[Harry]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6502947.stm

If you were the leader of the UK how would you handle this crisis???

[Harry]

Although i'd like to see a much more tougher approach from the UK, we have to tread very carefully or risk tipping the whole middle east over the edge. Regardless of where the sailors were i think Iran has gone too far and has only further isolated itself from the international community.

Is Iran possibly testing the will of the International community with the threats over its continual development of nuclear material. Maybe weakness here will simply encourage them to further ignore anything the UN says??? I would be publically speaking of diplomacy but quite firmly in private letting Iran know that patience is wearing thin and military action is a very real possibility.

Their behaviour has been unbelieveable and they should be punished as far as i'm concerned. What form that punishment should be lies with them, release them and we can have a few months of frosty diplomatic relations, keep doing what they are doing and the consequences would be much worse.

[Jim]

Iran is being a bollocks as usual but if I was anto blair, to be honest I wouldn't know what to do. I can say though that miliary action isnt going to happen. The US and British army can barely keep down rebels using outdated AKs in Iraq, nevermind trying to invade Iran which has the military capability to fight back (and the support from other countries that Saddam hussein never had) hard. I wouldnt go near the with an army.

As far as I saw on al'jazeera a while back (have got it at home, but i obviously dont speak arabic), the Iranian military is actually prepared at the borders for any attempt at an invasion by any country.

They'll hand back the soldiers after they've stopped egging on the UK.

[Harry]

jim said:

Iran is being a bollocks as usual but if I was anto blair, to be honest I wouldn't know what to do. I can say though that miliary action isnt going to happen. The US and British army can barely keep down rebels using outdated AKs in Iraq, nevermind trying to invade Iran which has the military capability to fight back (and the support from other countries that Saddam hussein never had) hard. I wouldnt go near the with an army.

As far as I saw on al'jazeera a while back (have got it at home, but i obviously dont speak arabic), the Iranian military is actually prepared at the borders for any attempt at an invasion by any country.

They'll hand back the soldiers after they've stopped egging on the UK.

The US/UK are only having trouble in Iraq as they are fighting insurgents who aren't exactly coming out to fight with the big boys and i don't blame them as they are using tactics which give them the advantage. In terms of Iran and its military, i agree that they would be more than capable of fighting back but they would be no match for the US/UK alliance.

However they would be able to inflict serious casualties and i'm not sure either country has the will with the current crisis in Iraq. Iran has to be very careful as hundreds of thousands of troops are now only next door so the coalition would have a very close base making precision air raids very easy to carry out without the need for long range bombers etc.

Trouble is that any action against Iran has the potential to draw Israel into the conflict and that would spell disaster for the middle east. On the whole we do need to be careful and the gung ho approach is not the answer but Iran has to be aware that its not untouchable.

[Harry]

A wee link Jim probably not any use for real comparisions but you can compare any army in the world against each other ;D ;D ;D A bit of fun anyway

www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=25

[Jim]

I think you're heavily over-estimating the ability of the UK and the US. Lets remember that Iran doesnt have troops stationed all over the world like the US does and to a lesser degree, the UK aswell. I mean the US has barricks as far away as Japan and South Korea not to mention a whole host of other countries, and the UK is up to its neck in other countries and their soldiers are apparently extremely under-equipped (there was a whole fuss about it in parliament too).

Had a look at wikipedia and by the looks of it Iran has 5 times the troops that the UK has, all in one place (the UK I think has 100,000 troops total but i dont think that includes the TA). How many are they going to be able to send over to take on an army of half a million that know the terrein like no other. Iran is quite an advanced country as far as their military goes. The US has a decent number of people at top equipment but theres no way the US is going to go into Iran, because Britain wants them too, they arent that stupid and they'll be more concerned with other middle eastern countries raising an eyebrow (Saudi arabia, Pakistan, to name two who are on "friendly" terms with the US).

I think its disgraceful what Iran are doing, but then again the US do the exact same thing (if not worse) so whos to point the finger?

Besides, with China backing up Iran privately you can bet the US wont touch them with a barge pole. Saddam hussein was different, he had no friends other then other arab countries.

[An Fear Dubh]

Firstly if I was UK leader Iran would be the least of your worries!!

Maybe if Tony had not invaded Iraq based on a lie of - 'weapons of mass destruction which could be launched at Britain in 45mins'. Then British troops would not have been in Iranian waters. Both governments are untrustworthy, so when faced with two liars who do you believe?? That is the problem for Blair now, he has been caught out telling lies. And now he says he is telling the truth this time! Maybe British troops should not be in Iranian or Iraqi waters, maybe they should be in British waters??

So the international community is not behind Blair because he is a known liar. But they also know Iran are not being honest either.

Also you have to understand that US troops based on the Kurdish/Iraq border have been making incursions into Iran, and Iran into Kurdanian/Iraq territory, and both sides have been engaged in a phoney war, firing across the border. This is seen by Iran as part of that phoney war. And these troops were isolated and vulnerable, maybe they were in Iraq waters maybe there were not, maybe they were on the edge of both. But this is a political message to Britain and the US, this phoney war can step up a gear. Yes, phyisically US troops would win, but then like Iraq how do they keep it? And this would step up world terror onto a couple of levels upwards.

Iranian (Persians) were bartering long before we were and they like to haggle. The British find the concept of haggling strange, and difficult to understand. But Blair is caught between two cultures - The British Tabloid Press v Iranian Diplomacy Bartering, one route leads to an escaltion and possible war with Iran. So it is make your mind up Tony!

[Wasp]

While I have my reservations over Iraq, I think Britain needs a prime minister like Maggie Thatcher. She would deal with it no problem at all. On phony Tony if it had been Iraq a few years ago I am sure the missiles would have been launched. Maybe for Blair Iran is a bigger kettle of fish. Bring back Maggie,

[An Fear Dubh]

So Wasp what are the positive aspects to the British being in Iraq?

Do you believe that the British went there to bring democracy to Iraq? To rid them of a dictator that Britain had propped up for years (I can not rember the number but I think he had British support for over 20 years!). If so why do they not bring democracy to other countries but way of invasion?? Or was it because Saddam was stupid enough to with-hold oil from the West?

[Wasp]

anfeardubh said:

So Wasp what are the positive aspects to the British being in Iraq?

Do you believe that the British went there to bring democracy to Iraq? To rid them of a dictator that Britain had propped up for years (I can not rember the number but I think he had British support for over 20 years!). If so why do they not bring democracy to other countries but way of invasion?? Or was it because Saddam was stupid enough to with-hold oil from the West?

Britain should not be in Iraq. Does that clear any misunderstanding??

[Jim]

wasp said:

While I have my reservations over Iraq, I think Britain needs a prime minister like Maggie Thatcher. She would deal with it no problem at all. On phony Tony if it had been Iraq a few years ago I am sure the missiles would have been launched. Maybe for Blair Iran is a bigger kettle of fish. Bring back Maggie,

The mother of a thousand dead.

[An Fear Dubh]

Well, I think that is much clearer now Wasp, as you said

Britain should not be in Iraq

and you also said

I have my reservations over Iraq

Both are very different prehaps you should be clearer in the first place.

[Wasp]

Watched a great programme on M.Thatcher and the Falklands. Her daughter went to the island to visit the residents etc. Maggie is definately a hero to them and to many more at home and abroad.

[Jim]

Shes certainly no hero to the working class at home.

[An Fear Dubh]

I am sure she is not even spoken of in households in old mining towns. Maybe that is why they went to the Malvinas to find someone to say something nice about her.