US attack on Iran 'inconceivable'

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3981307.stm

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said it is "inconceivable" that America would try to bomb Iran.
There has been speculation about whether the newly re-elected George Bush will be more hawkish over Iran.

Pointing to talks with Tehran, Mr Straw said: "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop."
Remember this Jack?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1906428.stm

He also firmly rejected suggestions that the US was poised to attack Iraq over its refusal to comply with UN weapons inspectors.

"I don't think for a second there is going to be an imminent US attack on Iraq," Mr Straw said
http://www.ectaco.com/dictionaries/view_info.php3?refid=2944&dict_id=775

Get in early while stocks last
 
#3
Saying that it is 'inconceivable' is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

As I understand it from the Bush administration and media reports, they are letting diplomacy work. It is my understanding that the IAEA, France, Germany and even the UK are trying to get Iran to stop enriching or aquiring enriched uranium. The dealings and diplomacy doesn't seem to be going very well; considering the fact that the Iranian parliment just passed legislation to go forward with uranium enrichment, and the vote took place to shouts of "Death to America."

If a deal with Iran can not be reached to stop their efforts to aquire nukes I think you will see attacks by the US against Iran. I agree with Corporal that these attacks will be most likely aerial and less likely to be a ground war. This is not to say that a ground war would not result, and it would most likely occur with Iran stepping over the board into Iraq 8O
 
#4
I think we should attack Irania. Let's face it, they shouldn't have nukes. They invade other countries on dubious grounds! They are run by religious extremists with mad social views! They sponsor terrorism abroad!
 
#5
Steamywindow said:
I think we should attack America. Let's face it, they shouldn't have nukes. They invade other countries on dubious grounds! They are run by religious extremists with mad social views! They sponsor terrorism abroad!
:wink:
 
#6
Crikey! I now see that what I wrote was open to misinterpretatianism! Us pro Bushies are like that you see.

I meant :

We should attack iranistan because they are Brown! And they have Oil! Which we want! And we meant to attack them last time! But there was a typing error! One lousy letter - you'd think these dumbass Ay-rabs would distinguish their lousy countries better than that! It's like Spain being called Bortugal - think of the confusion if that happened. They deserve everything we throw at 'em.
 
#7
Bravo_Bravo said:
Steamywindow said:
I think we should attack America. Let's face it, they shouldn't have nukes. They invade other countries on dubious grounds! They are run by religious extremists with mad social views! They sponsor terrorism abroad!
:wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Very very quick retort I like it B_B
 
#8
Steamywindow said:
Crikey! I now see that what I wrote was open to misinterpretatianism! Us pro Bushies are like that you see.

I meant :

We should attack iranistan because they are Brown! And they have Oil! Which we want! And we meant to attack them last time! But there was a typing error! One lousy letter - you'd think these dumbass Ay-rabs would distinguish their lousy countries better than that! It's like Spain being called Bortugal - think of the confusion if that happened. They deserve everything we throw at 'em.
My God, Steamy. If only the official Bush campaign had explained it that well!

I take back all my previous anti-Bush posts. I am converted by your far-seeing wisdom.

Thank you for showing me the light!
 
#10
Yes. All of it. Apart from 14th March 1986, about 21.00hrs, back of my land rover. I remember that well.

Took 3 washes to get the stains out.
 
#11
tomahawk6 said:
I suppose you have forgotten British history.
World Cup 1966
 
#13
Let's do an ARRSE attack on Iran just to prove Straw wrong.

http://travel.kelkoo.co.uk/

about £458 each but I think you still get a discount if you've got a gong from Gulf I.

Could be a problem getting tooled up though. We may have to use broken grolsch bottles.

Oh, hang on.....
 
#14
You're right tomahawk, our history is particularly chequered, but at least we didn't try to deceive ourselves over the fact we were being batsards. We invaded people because we wanted to rule the world - it was a national past time. Sh1t, we invaded people if they looked at us funny. We didn't need stupid excuses, and we shouldn't now. Iraq needed sorting, so USUK is sorting it. The world is a safer place now that Afghanistan and Iraq has been stamped on - the average squaddie certainly isn't, but that's our job. What we NEVER did was overestimate our political leaders. They were mostly cnuts, we never worshipped our over priviledged, under educated morons-in-chief as "men of the people" just because Fox News told us to.
 
#15
RTFQ said:
The world is a safer place now that Afghanistan and Iraq has been stamped on.
:lol: :lol: stop it, youre killing me :lol: :lol:
 
#16
Yeah Ok, sounds wrong doesn't it - but it hit me that the biggest thing AQ was able to do for the elections was a video tape. That's a significant decrease in capability I reckon.
 
#17
the worlds a safer place for Bin Laden now that Bush has been re-elected.
 
#18
Playing devil's advocate :twisted: :


Enriched uranium is also important if you want a nuclear power program, otherwise the mass of uranium needed for criticality is very, very high. Its seems that the 'Haves' (US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc) are being a saying 'it's big boys toys - you can't have them'

Does anyone know what capacity they able to produce?

If they are playing with Nuke development - why is it OK for the Israelis (led by a certifiable nutter), but not the Iranians?

Back to normal mode - the hell with them, level the place!
 
#19
I think we should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. To do nothing is easy.
It will be interesting to see if Iran uses them and who they use their new toys on. Of course for every action there are unintended consequences. If a few years down the road we have to turn Iran into a parking lot we can look back at say, "If we only had taken out Iran's nuclear facilities in 2005 we wouldnt have all this nuclear fallout". Who knows maybe the leaders of Iran will be responsible and the world will have no worries. India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. North Korea now has a nuclear capability. By all means lets let every country in the world into the nuclear club. No need to be exclusive.
 
#20
It might interest people to know that Iran acquired its nuclear technology from North Korea. Both these states have a long record of overt and covert aggressive policy towards their neighbours (espionage, terrorism, invasion....loud music, you get the picture). It will be too late (if it is not so already) to be contemplating action against Teheran when the mullahs announce that they have nuclear weapons. The UN and EU seem to believe that they can talk the Iranians into not developing them, but I cannot see Teheran being swayed by the 'softly, softly' approach. The former Iranian foreign minister (or prime minister, I stand to be corrected) stated last year that when Iran acquires 'the bomb' then the problem of Israel will be no more. It is a basic rule of strategy that you hit your enemy before he hits you (and before he acquires the ability to do so).

(I hope to God that tomahawk6 is not serious 8O 8O 8O ).
 

Latest Threads

Top