There is increasing speculation that President Bush is contemplating attacks on Iran.

Will Blair be as bullish about that as he was about Iraq?

If he is, I reckon that will see the back of Nulabour

Or perhaps Bush could hold back from Iran until after the UK elections?

Then if he decides to commit Britain we shall see the back of Blair but be lumbered with Nulabour again.

Originally posted by Lickszz
If he is, I reckon that will see the back of Nulabour


You made a spelling error there...
It should read:

'Nu-Labor'

(I posted that on b3ta many many moons ago)

He is a bit buggered anyway I think. He has said that he wants to serve a full 3rd term but right from the very start of the 3rd labour term the cabinet and going to start fighting amongst themselves about who is going to take over from him.
I think he has had his fingers badly bitten by Iraq, I'm not sure he would be that stupid to do it again.

RPG

A quick recap on my posts would have revealed that I more often than not write it has Nulabour always have and always will. I care not whether it is right or wrong. To be honest it's the first time I've seen you mention it in connection with my posts, you obviously knew what It meant though or you wouldn't have commented on it, would you?

I would prefer it if you could confine your thoughts to thread matter and not to others spelling/grammar. There is already far too much of that in too many other threads IMO and it's not something that I subscribe to.

Mods, please no bickering. If you do feel the need please try and do it by PM.
This is a poor attempt at humour.

Isn't the general election scheduled for May?
I think they'll wait for that before invading another country( if they are going to invade Iran at all in the near future)..

they aren't stupid in terms of getting in and staying in power.

Originally posted by carcrash
Mods, please no bickering. If you do feel the need please try and do it by PM.
This is a poor attempt at humour.
:hihi: :hihi:
Well it would be no surprise, if or when it happens!

Originally posted by venger
:hihi: :hihi:
Well it would be no surprise, if or when it happens!
Attacking Iran I mean.

I can't imagine any circumstances at present where the UK would back a US military campaign in Iran. We are working very closely with the other Europeans in engaging Iran in dialogue and have had some success. The shame is that the success is nullified by Dubya saying stupid things. Iran is a colatile nation with a political system where it is obvious that there is liberal versus traditional fight going on. By engaging in dialogue the EU is strengthening the liberal faction, and when Bush drops his clangers he inadvertently strengthens the traditional mullahs. Blair would have totally lost his marbles if he follows Bush.

Someone ought to buy Bush and Blair a copy of Command and Conquer each...

Originally posted by fhain29
I can't imagine any circumstances at present where the UK would back a US military campaign in Iran. We are working very closely with the other Europeans in engaging Iran in dialogue and have had some success. The shame is that the success is nullified by Dubya saying stupid things. Iran is a colatile nation with a political system where it is obvious that there is liberal versus traditional fight going on. By engaging in dialogue the EU is strengthening the liberal faction, and when Bush drops his clangers he inadvertently strengthens the traditional mullahs. Blair would have totally lost his marbles if he follows Bush.

You can't?

Regardless of Blair's true views of any international issues he will not be seen to ever disagree with Bush, even if he is working behind the scenes to tackle things in a different way.

Blair's whole strategy in international affairs is always to be seen to back Washington.

If there was a US plan to attack Iran, then it would take the removal of Blair to stop the UK backing it, and I can't see the spineless Labour MPs getting rid of him.

If the US continues to attack economically poor, religiously strong countries, it's going to be just like in the playground with a bully - they will all gang up and take their revenge.

Iran, Iraq and Syria may not have much of an army, but it only takes a few blokes to hijack an aircraft as we've seen in Septmeber 2001.

We all have to suffer - terror threats & treating anyone foreign with suspicion.

I think much will depend on how the Iraqi elections go. There is a strong possibility of large numbers causualties amongst the British and American forces trying to police it. There is a report that the CIA estimate the number of armed "terrorists" [their term] in Iraq now stands at 250,000 !! - unrealistic IMO, but there is certainly a huge problem.

If the election turns into the deadly fiasco that some are predicting then both Bush and Blair will face a serious backlash and pretty fierce opposition to any further military adventures in the region, and for Blair to back Bush in any punitive action against Iran would probably be political suicide.

Strangely, from what I've been reading lately Iran has always been more of a real threat in terms of nuclear capability than Iraq ever was.

Originally posted by Greybeard

Strangely, from what I've been reading lately Iran has always been more of a real threat in terms of nuclear capability than Iraq ever was.

Not really that strange. Bush, Blair and most other US/UK leaders of the last 20 years have been more worried about not looking stupid than actually protecting their citizens.

The fact that Saddam was our best mate in the middle east 20 years ago was intensely embarassing to the US and UK governments and they decided enough was enough and we had to get rid of him no matter what the consequences.

This was contrary to the instincts of a lot of British Officials (and quite a few American ones too).

The trouble with Britain is that when there is such a huge majority for one party the Prime Minister is a virtual dictator (within reason). What we need (slight deviation from topic) is a split between the executive (The cabinet+prime minister) and the legislature (the houses of parliament) and a written constitution.
If we had had those things, the events of the last few years could have been very different.

I know he is daft but i don't think george bush is THAT daft!!!

Originally posted by scottf
I know he is daft but i don't think george bush is THAT daft!!!

And what exactly do you think George W Bush has to with US policy?!

Do you think Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice et al would let themselves be pushed around by a dullard alcoholic with a very hazy grasp on reality?

Originally posted by Lickszz
RPG

A quick recap on my posts would have revealed that I more often than not write it has Nulabour always have and always will. I care not whether it is right or wrong. To be honest it's the first time I've seen you mention it in connection with my posts, you obviously knew what It meant though or you wouldn't have commented on it, would you?

I would prefer it if you could confine your thoughts to thread matter and not to others spelling/grammar. There is already far too much of that in too many other threads IMO and it's not something that I subscribe to.

LMAO - RPG got a spanking from a professional MOD.

Go Lickszz :thumbsup:

On Topic I seriously hope Britian does not follow suite with the states and go into a war with Iran.
I'm a big fan of America but I dont like the Bush administration and their policies.

I'l like to see Blair get booted this next election but I'd prefer labour to stay under the governing of Gordon Brown.

And what exactly has Iran done to justify threats of attack from the US?

Originally posted by Abdul
And what exactly has Iran done to justify threats of attack from the US?
Come on Abby this is Bush - since when does he need a reason?

Originally posted by Greybeard
I think much will depend on how the Iraqi elections go. There is a strong possibility of large numbers causualties amongst the British and American forces trying to police it. There is a report that the CIA estimate the number of armed "terrorists" [their term] in Iraq now stands at 250,000 !! - unrealistic IMO, but there is certainly a huge problem.


Well, the US should know how many people they've got out there.

Originally posted by Abdul
And what exactly has Iran done to justify threats of attack from the US?

It's claimed Iran is trying to produce weapons grade uranium. Iran doesn't deny it is refining uranium but claims it is for nuclear power stations, - a reason hard to believe considering Iran is sitting on vast reserves of oil and gas.

Just about everybody, except perhaps for Syria, is a bit uncomfortable with the idea of Iran being a nuclear power - especially Israel and the Gulf States; though perhaps the biggest threat to the US directly is that Iran might supply fissile material to terrorist groups for use in 'suitcase bombs'.

A justifiable cause for concern, which European nations have been trying to deal with diplomatically but which the US feels is a case for direct action.

If I am honest Bushes agenda scares the crap out of me, will he systematicly attack more and more countries forcing the folk of these countrys to flea to the countrys that are attacking them, the whole idea is caaaraaazy to me.

And who is after Iran, Korea isnt it ?, sh*t the last fight the yanks had against oriental folks they lost, I think that Bush has got a touch of a God complex going on, and if he manages to attack a country that has hidden nuclear capabilities where does that put the rest of the world.

No paddle thats where.

Does he know somthing he's not telling us?, is the only answer I can think of, and that aint an answer.

Originally posted by Zamo
Well, the US should know how many people they've got out there.

Good point Zamo :) - I'm sure many Iraqis regard the occupying forces as the 'terrorists'. But when it comes to casting their votes it won't be the occupying forces trying to dissuade them at the point of a gun :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Abdul
And what exactly has Iran done to justify threats of attack from the US?

Some of the reasons were discussed here...

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&postid=141569#post141569

Originally posted by Greybeard
Good point Zamo :) - I'm sure many Iraqis regard the occupying forces as the 'terrorists'. But when it comes to casting their votes it won't be the occupying forces trying to dissuade them at the point of a gun :rolleyes:

What's the difference between western countries invading a country and using the point of a gun to impose their ways and values and someone already in that country doing the same?

Originally posted by Greybeard
It's claimed Iran is trying to produce weapons grade uranium. Iran doesn't deny it is refining uranium but claims it is for nuclear power stations, - a reason hard to believe considering Iran is sitting on vast reserves of oil and gas.

Iran may be sitting on vast oil and gas reserves, but these won't last forvever. Then again, I suppose solar power would suffice for any Middle East country...I'd like to see the Bush administration recommend that for a solution :D

Originally posted by Greybeard
...perhaps the biggest threat to the US directly is that Iran might supply fissile material to terrorist groups for use in 'suitcase bombs'.

I'd be surprised if Iran would ever do that, as it's under constant scrutiny from the IAEA, the US and Europe. I would expect any terrorist organisation that was so inclined to own a suitcase bomb would have had ample opportunity to source one from the former Soviet Union.

Originally posted by Greybeard
A justifiable cause for concern, which European nations have been trying to deal with diplomatically but which the US feels is a case for direct action.

That does seem to be the case. It is interesting that while Bush is making tactless threats in the same way he did against Iraq, I'm not convinced that Iran has yet done anything illegal.

Given that it appears Iraq was invaded only after its WMD stockpile was destroyed, Iran could be seeking a nuclear deterrent to ward off a possible invasion by the US.

Originally posted by Zamo
What's the difference between western countries invading a country and using the point of a gun to impose their ways and values and someone already in that country doing the same?


Well...you tell me ?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way the opportunity for self-determination was brought about, there seems to be plenty of enthusiasm for it amongst ordinary Iraqis, - even those resident in UK.

And let us not overlook that most of those "already in that country" seeking to interfere with the elections will be supporters of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist régime, or insurgents from Iran, Syria, Jordan and other Islamic countries, charged with sabotaging the whole process.

I don't believe that western countries have the right to impose our models of government on other countries but the deed is done and we have to make the best of it.

If (or possibly when) Bush decised to go into Iran I don't really see how Blair will be able to extricate himself. Bush will almost certainly bring in military intelligence to back up whatever reason he invents to go into Iran and how can Blair possibly not go along with that, without it looking like he didn't believe the military intelligence backing up the excuses for going into Iraq?

It has been interesting to hear US Senators voicing their reservations on this issue during their interviewing of Condaleeza Rice over the last couple of days.

Hopefully, some of their statements may make the White house think twice.

Abdul, the IAEA have been widley critisised for their failure to keep tabs on what is going on in Iran, but it's hardly their fault when even the US with all that military satellite surveillance at it's disposal seem unable to do so. The US and Europe want Iran to stop enriching uranium for any purpose and they have refused. Iran is in fact constructing a nuclear power station with the active help of Russia, but this is widely held to be just a decoy and justification for it's nuclear research programme.

The article I read suggested that it would be 2008 before Iran had a deliverable nuclear weapon and the most likely target would be Israel.

There are many countries who pose a real growing nuclear threat..but unfortunately they aren't swimming in oil.

The bottom line here is does Iran pose a threat to the middle east and the west in general,if you look at the way they have tried to pretend their nuclear programme is purely for domestic non military use then that shows you the truth.
They will soon become a nuclear power and Isreal will not allow this to happen ,so expect conflict in the future.

I know they pose a thread but other countries do too.

There was a report on Ceefax the other day that indicated that US forces had been operating inside Iran.

I would be surprised if the U.S. had not sent its Special Forces across to check things out for themselves. There is a report linked below from the Wisconsin project, which is an organisation that monitors the proliferation of Atomic Weapons across the whole world. Although based in Washington they are a non-government organisation and are considered to hold a balanced view

http://www.iranwatch.org/update/status-report-112404.htm

The above is complex reading. I had a good friend whom is sadly no longer with us but he was a retired nuclear scientist and upon showing him this report it would have taken him 2 seconds to deduce what Iran was up to.

My own feeling are that we should not begin to contemplate allowing these people control of nuclear weapons. They are less than trustworthy and I think this report goes someway to confirm that. If the U.S decide to intervene, then I suspect there are many who would probably support that act.

Lickszz

You think that Iran seeking nuclear weapons could result in them being invaded, I see an Iranian nuclear deterrent being the only thing capable of preventing an invasion.

And given the horrific abuses perpetrated by American soliders against Afghan and Iraqi civilians in pursuit of freedom, democracy and justice, I'm siding with the Iranians on this issue - but only for that reason.

I have to say that an invasion of Iran will not be the walk over that Iraq was and so lets hope it does not come to that.
Again I feel the israelis will have a say in this matter as the jewish vote is strong in the U S.

Your concerns and points are noted and accepted Abdul.

With regards to Iran using them solely as a deterrent to prevent invasion. I don't believe the countries concerned are prepared to take that chance.

When the times comes, Hopefully lessons will have been learnt from Iraq and we won't see the same scenario. Unlikely though.

Originally posted by Abdul
Lickszz

You think that Iran seeking nuclear weapons could result in them being invaded, I see an Iranian nuclear deterrent being the only thing capable of preventing an invasion.



Abdul,

The range of the Iranian delivery system is about 800 miles at best so it's hardly a direct countermeasure to an American invasion. In any case it's very doubtful Bush would risk sending troops into Iran, even if he had them to spare. Any action will probably be confined to bombing known nuclear research facilities and rocket launch sites. It seems that many of these facilities have been deliberately built in densely populated residential areas to intensify the political fallout from such attacks by the US.

Iran's Shihab-3 missiles, when they were paraded through Tehran on Revolution Day in 2003 each carried a slogan - 'Israel must be wiped out', which is suggestive of the true purpose behind their nuclear weapon development programme. AFAIK the only local threat to Iran's security was Saddam Hussein, so there now remains no justifiable reason to continue with a WMD programme, unless of course Iran is seeking to become the dominant force in the middle east. In which case I'm pretty sure US action to destroy Iranian nuclear capability would have the tacit support of many of the countries within 800 miles of Iran's borders.

The only way Iran could use nuclear weapons to prevent a US 'invasion' is to threaten retaliation against Israel or perhaps the Gulf States/Saudi Arabia. I don't think Israel would 'wait and see' in this scenario and it's quite possible that Saudi Arabia might also have a card up it's sleeve. The Saudis recently purchased around fifty CSS-2 missiles from China; these are intermediate range rockets which the Chinese equip with nuclear warheads, but whether China sold them warheads too is anyone's guess - the US probably know.

Given the reactionary nature of Iran's ruling regime is seems unlikely they will listen to reason.

Originally posted by Abdul
Lickszz

You think that Iran seeking nuclear weapons could result in them being invaded, I see an Iranian nuclear deterrent being the only thing capable of preventing an invasion.

And given the horrific abuses perpetrated by American soliders against Afghan and Iraqi civilians in pursuit of freedom, democracy and justice, I'm siding with the Iranians on this issue - but only for that reason.

We live in contradictory times:

1 Gadaffi and Libya get taken off a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism by admitting that they were State Sponsors of Terrorism.
2 The US claimed that the UN prevented any discussion over Iraq and hence made invasion inevitable because the Sceurity Council would not approve their resolution to invade Iraq.

Thats just 2 of the more obvious examples of illogic off the top of my head.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Given the reactionary nature of Iran's ruling regime is seems unlikely they will listen to reason.

But from what I've been reading, Iran is slowly progressing in the way its people, and (more importantly, of course) the west wants it to? It seems perfectly willing to talk to Europe, as witnessed recently.

A US invasion of Iran simply cannot be justified as long as diplomacy is having an effect.

It all depends really what the Americans motivation for invading Iraq was.

I think they had a nation that if they can put governments in charge in middle east countries who broadly share the capitalistic instincts of the west, then the world would be a better place for the US economy to thrive in.

I reckon they thought that Iraq would be a good place to start as Saddam Hussain was the easiest person to cast as a villain - and once Iraq was "sorted out" and they had a nice peaceful democracy then it would be a beacon to the rest of the middle east, and everyone would want a pro western goverment.

Now, I can see what nonsense that is as clearly as the next man, but its clear that the US administration hold a ludicrously simplified view of the world.

Before either Bush or Blair decide to invade another country they should see firsthand (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_shooting_in_tal_afar/html/1.stm) the price of war!

Originally posted by Yodameister
Now, I can see what nonsense that is as clearly as the next man, but its clear that the US administration hold a ludicrously simplified view of the world.

It does sound hopelessly naiive, but the sorry fact is that it's true - I get the feeling that Rummy et al can't quite believe that those little Eye-rackies wouldn't just welcome the US as an occupying force with open arms.

Take a look at this for further evidence of the American policy-makers' plans for the future (not suitable for those with weak stomachs):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Originally posted by royjames
The bottom line here is does Iran pose a threat to the middle east and the west in general,if you look at the way they have tried to pretend their nuclear programme is purely for domestic non military use then that shows you the truth.
They will soon become a nuclear power and Isreal will not allow this to happen ,so expect conflict in the future.

So Iran are "pretending" that their nuclear programme is for energy generation and not military use? What is the source of this information? Would it be the same source that said Iraq were "pretending" when they said they didn't have any WMD?

Even if Iran are "pretending" do you really think that a military response is the way to deal with it? Has the invasion of Iraq been a success? Has it helped to reduce the "threat" to the West or has it increased it?

I would also seriously question your assessment that a war between Isreal and Iran is around the corner.

Originally posted by Lickszz
RPG

A quick recap on my posts would have revealed that I more often than not write it has Nulabour always have and always will. I care not whether it is right or wrong. To be honest it's the first time I've seen you mention it in connection with my posts, you obviously knew what It meant though or you wouldn't have commented on it, would you?

I would prefer it if you could confine your thoughts to thread matter and not to others spelling/grammar. There is already far too much of that in too many other threads IMO and it's not something that I subscribe to.

Urr.. its a joke..

y'know.. Labor.. as in the american spelling.. Tony Blair being Bush's lapdog... Labour = UK spelling, Labor = american spelling...

*joke departing Lickszz airport*

Originally posted by RPG
Urr.. its a joke..

y'know.. Labor.. as in the american spelling.. Tony Blair being Bush's lapdog... Labour = UK spelling, Labor = american spelling...

*joke departing Lickszz airport*
lol I can see this turning in to something :hihi:

Not at all. It was simply a mis-understanding and harmony was achieved.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Not at all. It was simply a mis-understanding and harmony was achieved.
So all's well in the land of Mod then ;)

And given the horrific abuses perpetrated by American soliders against Afghan and Iraqi civilians in pursuit of freedom, democracy and justice, I'm siding with the Iranians on this issue - but only for that reason.

Now come on Abdul. You can't chuck all the abuses on to the Americans, there were plenty of abuses before they got there.
Perhaps if the people who were doing the abusing in these countries had been took to task by the chocolate fireguard (un-United Nations ) the Americans would'nt have had to take action.
As for siding with the Iranians you're on your own there mate

Originally posted by retep
Now come on Abdul. You can't chuck all the abuses on to the Americans, there were plenty of abuses before they got there.
Perhaps if the people who were doing the abusing in these countries had been took to task by the chocolate fireguard (un-United Nations ) the Americans would'nt have had to take action.

True, but the difference being that the Amercian soldiers invaded Iraq to 'liberate and free' those same civilians they were torturing.

As I'm sure you're aware, the CIA were always going to turn a blind eye to their puppet Saddam until he was foolish enough to threaten their interests. And Iraqi civilians have been paying a heavy price for his foolishness for over a decade.

Originally posted by retep
As for siding with the Iranians you're on your own there mate

I'm currently on the side of the Europeans (ie diplomacy).

However, as it is increasingly seems that Middle East 'regime change' was a Bush administration policy well before the events of 9/11, I would prefer Iran had a nuclear deterrent to prevent invasion than have Iranian civilians suffer in the same way that Afghan and Iraqi civilians have already done so.

If Iran had a stable and democratic government then I would agree with you,
at the moment it would be like giving a moron a box of fireworks and saying don't light them.

Originally posted by retep
If Iran had a stable and democratic government then I would agree with you,
at the moment it would be like giving a moron a box of fireworks and saying don't light them.

I agree with you there. That Bush administration are a bunch of cowboys.

I'm siding with the Iranians on this issue I'm currently on the side of the Europeans (ie diplomacy).
who are you siding with next seems like you don't know where you stand,
perhaps you'll have your arm round George next

Originally posted by Abdul

I'm currently on the side of the Europeans (ie diplomacy).

However, as it is increasingly seems that Middle East 'regime change' was a Bush administration policy well before the events of 9/11, I would prefer Iran had a nuclear deterrent to prevent invasion than have Iranian civilians suffer in the same way that Afghan and Iraqi civilians have already done so.

I'm sure most people hope the European diplomatic efforts will succeed.

How would Iran's possession of WMDs prevent an invasion ? I thought the idea of an invasion was to prevent Iran even developing WMDs.

Perhaps in the event of the US mounting a ground attack the Iranian leaders might use the same tactics they employed against Iraq. The thousands of unarmed children it is claimed they sent against the Iraqi army were mercilessly mown down, but whatever you might think of American soldiers I doubt they'd have the stomach for that....at least I hope not.

And are you confident that if Iran were permitted to successfully develope WMDs they would use them solely to avert a US invasion, and if the US was still stupid enough to mount an invasion, what would the Iranian targets be ?

Originally posted by retep
who are you siding with next seems like you don't know where you stand,
perhaps you'll have your arm round George next

Galloway? or Bush? :hihi:

Originally posted by Greybeard
How would Iran's possession of WMDs prevent an invasion ? I thought the idea of an invasion was to prevent Iran even developing WMDs.

Given that the idea of 'a redraw of the Middle East' had been planned years before (possibly before Iran's nuclear aspirations) I would have thought any invasion of Iran would be to...

[_] secure oil supplies

[_] install a puppet regime

(please tick as appropriate; multiple answers allowed)

I don't think Iran's existing leaders are as hardline as Khomeini. I certainly don't expect Iran to take the fight to the US, but perhaps if Iran were prepared to use an atomic weapon within its border on US troops then maybe US miltary leaders would think twice.

But that depends on whether or not the Bush administration sees its troops as mere cannon fodder and Iranian civilians as collateral damage.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Perhaps in the event of the US mounting a ground attack the Iranian leaders might use the same tactics they employed against Iraq. The thousands of unarmed children it is claimed they sent against the Iraqi army were mercilessly mown down, but whatever you might think of American soldiers I doubt they'd have the stomach for that....at least I hope not.

Given the thousands of civilians killed by all sides in the last century, I wouldn't put anything past any army. All the more reason why I don't want military action.

Originally posted by Greybeard
And are you confident that if Iran were permitted to successfully develope WMDs they would use them solely to avert a US invasion, and if the US was still stupid enough to mount an invasion, what would the Iranian targets be ?

Yes. As mentioned above, I don't expect Iran to take on the US outside of Iran's borders, nor do I expect Iran to pre-emptively attack any other states in the Middle East that are hostile to a Shia nuclear state.

As another possible outcome, as Iran tries the path of diplomacy, it may succeed where others have failed in using the weapons as a disposable bargaining tool in creating a nuclear-free Middle East.

Finally, let's not forget that Iran's leaders have commented on how their nuclear technology (regardless of how suspicious it looks) is for energy and research purposes only; they have said they hate nuclear weapons and have no desire to make them. I will be interested to see whether that promise is kept.

Galloway? or Bush?

Looks like Galloway you can then both hide behind the Bush while the s**t hits the fan.


Finally, let's not forget that Iran's leaders have commented on how their nuclear technology (regardless of how suspicious it looks) is for energy and research purposes only; they have said they hate nuclear weapons and have no desire to make them. I will be interested to see whether that promise is kept.

Seem's a bit of a risky bet:rolleyes:

Is Blair spelt Bliar?

So, Jack Straw is in America to talk Bush out of attacking Iran?

Not in my book he isn't, to postpone it until after the UK election more like.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4201555.stm

Bush won't attack Iran.

He can't.

Iran isn't surrounded on 3 sides by US airbases.
Iran hasn't been under a punitive regime of sanctions and bombing for 12 years.
Iran will put up a fight if attacked. A real fight. Bush would have to bring back the draft and alienate the USA from the world community to invade Iran.
No one knows where they have all their weapons, war resources etc.

on the other hand

Iran will have the bomb soon.

Iran has the highest level of 'pro-western feeling' (if that can be quantified) in the younger generation than ever before.
The theocratic rule is more despised than ever.

Iran may be on the verge of a popular democratic revolution in its own right.

Either way, Iran will have the bomb. Bush has to accept that fact and deal with it, as does everyone else in the region & the wider world

I may have to eat my words.

Did Saddam Hussein only fire Scud Missiles at Israel once Desert Storm had begun?

Anyone see Blair avoid a question about this today?

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
Did Saddam Hussein only fire Scud Missiles at Israel once Desert Storm had begun?

Yes. Mind you the Iraelis singlehandedly destroyed Iraq's embryonic nuclear powerstation at Osirak during "peacetime".