http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17251279

Some people will go nuts at this and call the USA various names for trying to police the world. Others would support them.

I don't post this so that we can debate US policy so try not to start arguing about that. I just wonder what your thoughts are on Iran and the nuclear programme. Do you think the claim they are developing weapons is rubbish or do you think there is skullduggery in Iran and weapons are indeed being made?

If Iran succeed in making weapons, what do you reckon their primary target would be? Israel?

Debate away  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Mr. Obama has to say something because otherwise will look bad in the eyes of Israeli people...
Iran with its current friends (Russia, India, China), all nuclear powers, don't give a shìt... For now...
And there is also Syria...
And most of all, interesting is the new relation Japan - Russia, built on the basis of the help given by the Russia to Japan.
All in all, the Americans has to face the reality that the power influence/spheres are shifting...
And they are loosing terrain big time.

Last edited by dunroof on 2nd Jan 2013 7:32 am. Edited 1 time in total

dunroof wrote:

Our government is corrupt, it lies and distorts most things. The press isn't far behind it. It also lies and distorts.

Obama has to say this because the lobbyist mafia (they're all the same guys / women trying to get their interests done by any means) do control the US government (or any other government BTW).
And the Israel lobby is very strong. They do control America! Obama has no choice! If he doesn't do as Israel wants he won't be president by end of the year.

OTOH Iran is one of the countries with the best quality oils (same as Iraq) (much less sulfur as oil from the north sea and it's just under the surface of the Iranian deserts) and Iran has nearly most quantities. (3rd place worldwide)

Apparently there's only oil left for the next 100 years or so.

Iran has do protect it's oil even with atomic weapons because it's the last there is. It's not about destroying Israel!
Iran does business with Israel everyday: the airport in Teheran does have a special gateway for business planes going and coming from Israel, it's hidden and not visible to the average tourist.

We all saw what had happened in Iraq: it wasn't about Saddam. It was about "Who does get the control over oil in middle east rules the world". I'm sure the USA do get oil for free from Iraq the next 50 years. Most European countries do still pay the debts to the US for them helping us in WW II.

The real problem the US do have with Iran, is that they do sell oil to China.
In 10 years China will be the number one country, not USA anymore.
Already now China does produce over 75 % of any goods, even soon Land Rovers. 2 years ago the Chinese said "We do produce and transport most goods in the world, so need most of the oil resources"

And China is not alone: there's India, Brazil and Russia too!
The big 3 China, Brazil and India already work together: even USA and Europe together can't compete with these 3.

China has the money, Brazil the resources and India the engineering knowhow. In Brazil a complete town was build this way!

The world does change and the USA and EU won't be on the winners side! Freelander 2 SE 4Td Izmir Blue, Dog cage for Alaskan Malamute, iphone Navigon Navigator

If Americans have the right to bear arms and harm bears

Iranians have the right to have bombs and smoke bongs & protect what is theirs

End of the days it's the terrorists that will blow the world to kingdom come not the Americans even with their, if we can't have it, no one can attitude.....

Last edited by dunroof on 2nd Jan 2013 7:31 am. Edited 1 time in total

doc yes to both your questions as my dad liked to say never trust an(arab) most of the manipulate and decieve people, if iran did get a neuclear wepons i thing that the regime would be another iraq and would upset the balance in the middle east rainy-city
xs

This thread has been an interesting read so far, but it does contain some misconceptions which do need to addressed at length if the debate here is to gain credibility. Namely:

When addressing the question of "Who are the enemies of the state of Iran" you must not seek an answer by looking from the outside towards Iran, but to look from the inside outwardly with the eyes of their clerics and not Iranian politicians as they are two different entities. One, thinks it runs the state of Iran - the other knows it does. Working from the inside out it is abundantly clear that anyone (yes individuals not states) that is not a Shiite is an enemy of Iran. Collectively the Shiite clerical order seeks a single world religious domain and to do that they frequently use proxy "terrorist" agencies such as Hezbollah, and others who are not even Shiite if it progresses their political strategic goal. Since the overthrow of the last Shah the world has accumulated over 40yrs of evidence that underwrites their Shiite global strategy.

The misconception that Israel is the Nr.1 enemy of Iran plays into the very successful Shiite political ambition of distracting attention way from the clerics ultimate goal and provides a healthy hysterical diversion that consumes namely the west's political leaders and leverages Israel's own agenda of securing a level of influence in the west far greater than it's actual worth to our (the west's) needs. Europe and the USA will come to no harm for example should the present state of Israel be forced back to its pre 1966 borders - and the creation of a single geographically unified Palestinian state.

The Israeli hegemony that exists in the USA is indeed powerful - money is a seductive tool (the Mormon Mit Romney may well become the first US citizen to buy his way into the presidency despite being unpopular if he does well tomorrow in the "Super Tuesday" republican conventions) but, the Jewish they are no more powerful than any other religious community within the USA - the world's largest secular society. Be clear Israel does not and never has "controlled" a US president, and possibly least of all Obama, as their track record shows that they been much more influential with republican presidents. Interesting conundrum: will a Mormon play patsy with a Jew.

Spheres of influence change throughout the millenium and the global balance of power with it - this is no modern activity - and during great periods of dominance by one community others are always on the periphery building their resources and assets to eventually play a more central role. The tools used have always been one or more of the following: commerce, might, disinformation, faith, technology and culture. Iran is no different to those that have gone before it. Roman, Greek, Mongolian, Chinese, Russian, Spanish, British etc., and all their leaders (aka Governments) have lied, deceived, coerced and even enslaved their citizens to secure their aims. We should not be surprised therefore by what we hear or read in whatever media from whatever source.

Whose next to dominate the economies (rather than mind set) of the world is a fascinating debate. The BRIC emerging economies (group acronym created by Brit Terence O'Neil Chairman of Goldman Sachs in 2001) agreed with by the members of the WEF, but recently coming under revision by many including O'Neil himself. One main contention is that the "R" should be dropped on the grounds of its stagnant political & industrial development, and that at least the divergent and rapidly developing economies of Australia, Turkey, Indonesia or South Africa should replace Russia. Yesterday's Putin result has added further weight to that in that some commentators have responded that he'll spend Russia's slowly growing GDP on military equipment (ideological might) rather than investing broadly across the nation's economic infrastructure.

We live in a constantly changing imperfect world and what we see as a threat today (economically or militarily) may not be the threat tomorrow. There are only two nations currently on the planet developing a nuclear industry outside of the IAEA covenant: Iran and N.Korea. The N. Korean's have been having an on-off love affair with Vienna so there is some hope there. The Iranians have shut doors whenever inspectors have been allowed into the country - so one has to ask why. Iran like any other nation has the right to develop their energy needs in whatever direction they so desire including nuclear, but, transparency will be the key to influencing friends and enemies alike. Should the present Iranian regime have nuclear weapons - in my opinion no as pluralism is not in their mission statement.

After your very detailed and I'm sure accurate reply Athlestan I must apologise if you think I am over simplifying things, I cannot follow that .
In this modern age it seems all bombings, murders and atrocities are being carried out by 'extremists' and religious fanatics and these fanatics just happen to be in the most Islamic.

I have no time for America, this country or the media when it comes to manipulation and if it serves us politically, we will sanction despicable deeds to further our aims.

I also don't think Iran should be allowed to enhance their nuclear capability and be allowed nuclear weapons, these weapons have no place in a country that I believe would not think twice about launching at another country 'in the name of God'.

So here goes another war that cannot be won and the heartache that goes with it for the large percentage of innocents, but the world does need to limit the deadly arsenal to conventional weapons if at all possible. Why the hell these countries will not be transparent in their nuclear involvement only they can answer I suppose, unfortunately it is only America that has the clout at the moment to 'police' these countries.

EYorkshire
The views you expressed on Iran and Islamic terrorists are indeed shared by many and are heart felt, but a) they are by their simplicity misleading and b) they are two entirely separate subjects. Let's just look firstly at fatal global terrorist attacks. These can be categorised as follows:

a) Muslim attacks against "None Muslims" targets (i.e other religions) - people and/or institutions fall into the minority of global atrocities at around 18% of all.
b) Muslim attacks against Muslim targets - people and/or institutions the figure is approximately 70%
c) The unexplained 12% are where blame cannot be 100% attributed.

If you then assess the geography of the attacks you see that over 60% worldwide are located within the Middle East itself causing the greatest harm to Muslim people and their property. So from all that data we can identify that the real Jihad is between competing Islamic factions on there own turf.

Examining category (a and b) in detail the terrorism falls into two distinct operations: internal and exported. Over 80% of the terrorism is internal killing Sunni or Shiite, the remainder is Muslim directly targeting members of all other religious groups not only Christian.

The picture changes dramatically when you analyze geographically exported terror. Here it is clear that over 90% of these actions is indeed Muslim targeting other religions mainly of a Christian background, but as I have report this campaign represents approximately one fifth of the terrorist acts committed globally.

As I stated in my original post the Iranian state does engage in terror activities directly and through proxy agents so it is a clear threat, however, apart from the Iran/Iraq 8 year war it has not engaged its Military forces in a direct attack upon any of its neighbours or state enemies i.e. America or Israel. Its military took no part in any of the Arab/israeli wars to- date. Unlike America.

Since the UN sponsored Korean War America has decided to export its military muscle (almost entirely unsuccessfully) across the globe in many campaigns, and has sponsored proxy agents (especially in S.America) to topple left wing regimes to be replaced by fascist right wing White House favourites, or in the Middle East by Israel to support that states own insecurity and expansionism.

So can it be justified an present evidence to label the Iranian state as the greatest threat to global peace, or even to suggest that on current evidence it harbours intentions to militarily invade another sovereign state?

Finally let's just briefly look at "Homeland Security USA" where there has been in the last quarter of a century only two concerted major terrorist actions resulting in very high fatalities and injuries with extensive devastating loss of infrastructure. The "score" here is Muslims 1 v Christians 1 (WTC/Pentagon v Okalahoma City) the first right wing Christian attack on OC predated the Muslim WTC/P.

The response by the US is and always has been (and maybe always will be) shoot any none Caucasian Johnny Foreigner first and then engage one's intellect, especially if they happen also to be a none Christian and/or Left Wing or a Communist.

So is Iran the greater of the two evils, or does the USA and its presumed politic of policing the world present the greater danger with it's own internal instability and greater nuclear arsenal? For that I have no answer.

The present Iranian nuclear debate needs to be addressed by the IAEA, Iran and its near neighbours and not by the Sheriff of Washington. If it's not, then EY your prophecy of a new Middle East war may prove to be correct.

Your replies make interesting reading Athelstan and I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject but unfortunately the majority of people are like me, know a little and make a judgement on that.
All we can see is a country making threats to Israel and any Western country that opposes them, these threats are tolerable with conventional weapons but worrying if the unstable government succeeds in nuclear long range missile technology.
There will be no turning back if Iran decides to attempt a closure of the 'Strait of Hormuz', let's hope its an empty threat.

The real Iranian threat, as Athelstan states, is from within, many of my clients are Iranian, they too, see internal problems being a real issue.

If Iran wanted to target the West using direct action it would have done so by now, I imagine by using dirty bombs, having nuclear material allows them to do this. The threat of nuclear weapons against its neighbours is better for them, a strike against the West achieves little compared to the power they would hold over their more immediate neighbours.
Long range missiles are certainly an issue, however, with todays modern technology, they would be detected very quickly and probably destroyed before they got to us, bizarrely, over that place we have already laid to waste..Iraq.

Israel is about 10 minutes from Iran by missile, sat directly in between is Iraq, a place were massive US/UK activity has been going on for quite some time, with US carriers in the Gulf, intercepts are certainly possible.
Certainly makes me wonder

I agree EY, many people see Iran as a direct threat, in reality, the threat within the Middle East itself, is the major issue, without the oil resources from that region, things would get pretty bleak.

Interesting points here chaps. Picking up on what EY said, I do wonder about the 'Strait of Hormuz'.

I believe the EU embargo comes into force at the end of May (not sure though so don't quote me on that). Let's just assume for a moment that Iran deployed ships and tried to block the strait or even succeeded. Wouldn't such a move effect oil transport to even Russia and China who are opposed to the view of the USA? Perhaps that would turn even them against Iran.

Also, if the USA deployed their Nimitz Battlegroup to challenge the blockade, who would open fire first or who would back down? (Probably not the trigger happy Americans).

So many theories and possibilities with regard to the embargo and the threats to close the strait. Either way, there is skullduggery to be had I suspect. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16182561 LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey