More signs of upcoming war with Iran?

brianthebard

brim4brim wrote: »

Or maybe they want Nuclear power for domestic use and export the oil as the price goes ever higher else where.

Absolutely. Its funny to think that while France wants to have Nuclear power rated as a renewable energy source, that same source isn't allowed to countries that certain countries don't like. Who knew Ahmajinedad was a closet green?:D

RATM

OP sorry to wake you up but the US has been at war with Iran since 1979. Warfare does not have to involve missiles, ideological and economic warfare are an integral part of US FP and can just be as effective as missiles. An example in hand- the Vietnam War- most ppl see that as a 1960/70s thing. In fact the first US serviceman was killed in Nam in 1956. And the Vietnamese didnt feel the end of economic strangulation until the 1990's when they got a FTA with the US. Even after the FTA they were left with a whole bunch of unusable land.

Just take a spin down to Ahvaz in Iran if you need proof. The US has been engaging in intimidation for years now- they fly F-18s over the oil fields there, its over 25 miles into Iranian airspace. I saw this with my own eyes in 2004 and any local down that way will tell you the same thing. If the Iranians flew into Iraq you can rest assured theyd be shot down and the US would enjoy telling the whole world about it. Makes you wonder who is the aggressor? And who is the actor showing extreme restraint?

How would Irish ppl react if the British airforce did a flyby over Dublin and out as far as Kilcock before turning their war machines around and flying back?

Denis Irwin

It would be very idiotic even for Bush to contemplate attacking Iran considering they're already streched in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way the Americans would get sufficent troop numbers would be if they re-introduced the draft and if that happens in a McCain Presidency where he to win the Election(Hopefully he won't) then the Republicans and McCain can kiss a second term in the White House goodbye IMO.

Hellm0

Denis Irwin wrote: »

It would be very idiotic even for Bush to contemplate attacking Iran considering they're already streched in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way the Americans would get sufficent troop numbers would be if they re-introduced the draft and if that happens in a McCain Presidency where he to win the Election(Hopefully he won't) then the Republicans and McCain can kiss a second term in the White House goodbye IMO.

Were the draft to be instituted I would nearly go so far as to say there would be civil war. At the very least it would be political DEATH for whomever should try to bring it back. Also I would be forced to move to Canada or back home and the US economy just couldn't take a withdrawal of fund's and funk on that scale.

Also RATM I couldnt agree more. Economic and political warfare are the tool's of choice of today's modern tyrant's, Pinochet brand capitalism!

Kevster

I believe that Ahmedinejad is just teasing America because he knows that they cannot afford to go into another war. If you notice, none of the American TV news stations are reporting anything out of Iran anymore. That's probably a good thing.

Ahmedinejad is a pure bollox that the world could do without; but the same applies to Putin, Bush, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, and Chavez. The connection between each of these: Huge egos and an insatiable drive towards stubborness

Kevin.

SeanW

+1;

Hammer, Nail and Head.

Manic Moran

Kevster wrote: »

I believe that Ahmedinejad is just teasing America because he knows that they cannot afford to go into another war. If you notice, none of the American TV news stations are reporting anything out of Iran anymore. That's probably a good thing.

Last week's arrest of the head of Tehran's anti-vice squad in a brothel got a mention. As do the occasional military announcements by Iran.

Still, the US rarely reports on anything out of anywhere non-USian unless it affects them in some way, I wouldn't see that as a point of view exclusive towards Iran. What I'm finding interesting is the serious amount of coverage that Benedict is getting over here.

NTM

SkepticOne

Kevster wrote: »

If you notice, none of the American TV news stations are reporting anything out of Iran anymore. That's probably a good thing.

CNN are doing a series of reports out of Iran at the moment.

SeanW

brianthebard wrote: »

Absolutely. Its funny to think that while France wants to have Nuclear power rated as a renewable energy source, that same source isn't allowed to countries that certain countries don't like. Who knew Ahmajinedad was a closet green?:D

Firstly the French are well within their rights to look for good ratings for nuclear electricity. After all, the French grid is backed by 95%+ non-fossil sources.

Secondly, there is actually nothing stopping the Iranians from enjoying peaceful nuclear electricity. What is being contested here, is the Iranian's fuel enrichment program, the same technology could lead them to develop nuclear weapons. Which the Islamist government could use to wipe Israel off the map etc.

However, it is not necessary to enrich fuel to run a peaceful nuclear programme for two reasons.
1) You can always have someone else enrich your fuel - the Russian's offered to do this.
2) Some reactor designs, like the CANDU reactor, allow the operator to use Natural Uranium, and indeed a wide variety of other fissile and semi-fissile materials as fuel as required. It is heavily used in Canada and there are a few elsewhere in the world.

IIRC several offers of co-operation and assistance were issued to the Iranians to incentivise them to stop developing enrichment technologies. One question I have for them would be this: Why did they not take either of the above two options. Another question would be why they're not taking care of more pressing issues closer to home such as petrol rationing (the country has no petrol refinaries so the gov't spends a fortune subsidising petrol imports), the continuing collapse of the Iranian Rial, (Iran has inflation ranging from 15-20%) instead of messing around with NPPs that they most likely don't need.

Kevster

SkepticOne wrote: »

CNN are doing a series of reports out of Iran at the moment.

Oh, okay, I just haven't noticed them then. Maybe they just aren't giving as much coverage as they used to.

SeanW

SeanW wrote: »

However, it is not necessary to enrich fuel to run a peaceful nuclear programme for two reasons.
1) You can always have someone else enrich your fuel - the Russian's offered to do this.
2) Some reactor designs, like the CANDU reactor, allow the operator to use Natural Uranium, and indeed a wide variety of other fissile and semi-fissile materials as fuel as required. It is heavily used in Canada and there are a few elsewhere in the world.


But has Iran not been working within the framework of the Non proliferation treaty all along?..And why should they have to rely on Russia to enrich it for them to please the US?..

Kev_ps3

Deleted User wrote: »

SeanW wrote: »

However, it is not necessary to enrich fuel to run a peaceful nuclear programme for two reasons.
1) You can always have someone else enrich your fuel - the Russian's offered to do this.
2) Some reactor designs, like the CANDU reactor, allow the operator to use Natural Uranium, and indeed a wide variety of other fissile and semi-fissile materials as fuel as required. It is heavily used in Canada and there are a few elsewhere in the world.


But has Iran not been working within the framework of the Non proliferation treaty all along?..And why should they have to rely on Russia to enrich it for them to please the US?..

The US is using this issue as an excuse to put sanctions on Iran and finally war. If it wasnt this issue then I tell you it would be something else, probably involving Isreal i.e "they want to wipe isreal off the face of the earth" - a quote that noone actually said and was taken out of context.