P.K. Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Oh dear, nuclear proliferation is a good thing then? With Iran awash with oil surely no-one is stupid enough to think they're taking the nuclear route for purely peaceable purposes. How quaintly naive some folks are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Oh come over P.K., you don't honestly believe that the West has the right to start wars when it cannot have complete control over Middle East oil? You're right - I don't believe that. Iraq invaded two of her neighbours and basically de-stabilised the entire region. Unfortunately Saddam's legacy will probably be with us for a long time in the shape of Iran's nuclear ambitions. There are unstable regions all over the world which might have been candidates for Western intervention. The difference is none of them are sat on one of the World's richest oil fields. When it comes to nuclear weapons, we arrogantly expect other countries to aqcuiesce to our demands to disarm while maintaining a massive arsenal of long-distance nuclear weapons ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Oh dear, nuclear proliferation is a good thing then? With Iran awash with oil surely no-one is stupid enough to think they're taking the nuclear route for purely peaceable purposes. How quaintly naive some folks are... The assumption would be that the country will adopt finite deterrence strategies in the same manner as France or Britain. They will be targeted at Israel. This all seems very destabilisation in terms of a balance of power, but doesn't Israel have nuclear weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Oh come over P.K., you don't honestly believe that the West has the right to start wars when it cannot have complete control over Middle East oil? You're right - I don't believe that. Iraq invaded two of her neighbours and basically de-stabilised the entire region. Unfortunately Saddam's legacy will probably be with us for a long time in the shape of Iran's nuclear ambitions. There are unstable regions all over the world which might have been candidates for Western intervention. The difference is none of them are sat on one of the World's richest oil fields. Afghanistan has no oil that I am aware of. But like I said, the West needs a stable Middle East to function so Saddam had to go. You don't have to be Master Of The Bleeding Obvious to know that it's because of their oil fields that the West needs a stable Middle East to function. So your point is? When it comes to nuclear weapons, we arrogantly expect other countries to aqcuiesce to our demands to disarm while maintaining a massive arsenal of long-distance nuclear weapons ourselves. Correct. But then we haven't arrogantly stated an aim to obliterate the State of Israel. But we can obliterate any nation that has a go, if they think they're hard enough. Trident is being updated for a reason, can you guess what that reason is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Iraq invaded two of her neighbours and basically de-stabilised the entire region. Unfortunately Saddam's legacy will probably be with us for a long time in the shape of Iran's nuclear ambitions. How so? One of the main reasons for Iran's development of WMD was the appalling losses suffered by the Pasdaran against Iraq. The Saddam regime had no qualms against using WMD and the Iranians are thought to have suffered at least one million casualties. So they decided to develop their own to fight fire with fire. Had the Iraq/Iran war not taken place things would probably have been very different - but you would never know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Correct. But then we haven't arrogantly stated an aim to obliterate the State of Israel. But we can obliterate any nation that has a go, if they think they're hard enough. Trident is being updated for a reason, can you guess what that reason is? But it would be a fool who would think that Iran would use nuclear weapons offensively against Israel. It would be suicide. Trident? Well one of the reasons is apparently because Britain could possibly be under threat in the future from a 'rogue state'. However, much of the reason is because Britain is a declining power and nuclear weapons do offer an indeterminate amount of prestige. Certainly Britain wants to retain its seat on the Security Council and it wants to be involved in any of the big decisions that focus on nuclear weapon control. But it is hypocritical for Britain to upgrade its weapons and enforce proliferation across the world. One of the main reasons for Iran's development of WMD was the appalling losses suffered by the Pasdaran against Iraq. The Saddam regime had no qualms against using WMD and the Iranians are thought to have suffered at least one million casualties. So they decided to develop their own to fight fire with fire. Had the Iraq/Iran war not taken place things would probably have been very different - but you would never know for sure. Where did you find this out? Well it isn't fighting fire with fire, nukes aren't the same as chemical weapons. But considering that Iraq is no longer a power in that region, why the greater efforts of recent to forge ahead with their development? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 However, much of the reason is because Britain is a declining power Go on Lala - where did you read that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 I could probably dig out a lot of books which explain that fact. Maybe Paul Kennedy's books. I have to wonder why you ask though. Were you not aware of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 I could probably dig out a lot of books which explain that fact. Maybe Paul Kennedy's books. I have to wonder why you ask though. Were you not aware of this? Which context are you using the word declining? Militarily? Economically? Morally? Or just that the Empire ain't wot it used to be like? I think the United Kingdom is still a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 But it would be a fool who would think that Iran would use nuclear weapons offensively against Israel. It would be suicide. Correct. But would it stop a mad mullah? And there's the rub. I don't expect it to come to that though courtesy of the CIA and the IAF. One of the main reasons for Iran's development of WMD was the appalling losses suffered by the Pasdaran against Iraq. The Saddam regime had no qualms against using WMD and the Iranians are thought to have suffered at least one million casualties. So they decided to develop their own to fight fire with fire. Had the Iraq/Iran war not taken place things would probably have been very different - but you would never know for sure. Where did you find this out? Well it isn't fighting fire with fire, nukes aren't the same as chemical weapons. But considering that Iraq is no longer a power in that region, why the greater efforts of recent to forge ahead with their development? I honestly don't recall how I figured that one out, check my posts passim. But if you want respect go nuclear! Edited to add from 2006: Now the nightmare scenario is arriving. Iran is developing nuclear weapons because their neighbour, one Saddam Hussein, killed thousands of Pasdaran with WMD and the Iranians have no intention of letting it happen again. Unfortunately Iran also supports Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and so on. The danger is that they will develop weapons and pass them on to the nutters. Bye bye Tel Aviv. Iran can't be stopped by invasion because of the terrain and the fact they have a huge army. They are also awash with oil and will probably upset the markets if restrained by sanctions. What I expect to happen is that Iran will increase it's capacity to bring weapons grade material much closer. The US will use it's intelligence resources to pinpoint where it is happening. They will pass this on to the IAF and at the agreed time the Israeli Air Force takes the lot out. Of course, the Iranians will howl with rage and turn to the International Community for support to censure Israel. I suspect the only support they get will be from Zimbabwe and Syria. Israel will point out that the fruitcake running Iran stated he would "Wipe Israel off the map!" and rightly claim self defence. The UN will point out it told Iran to do no such thing and the whole lot gets swept under the carpet - until the next time... Propping up the regional super-power with billions in aid, investments and grants looks like a very shrewd US investment to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Which context are you using the word declining? Militarily? Economically? Morally? I think the United Kingdom is still a player. Economically and militarily, its role and status in the world. The UK is definitely still a player. But it is finding it more and more difficult to maintain its standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 So, a thread reporting about a Military Cross being awarded to a manx soldier in recognition of exemplary gallantry is being derailed by the usual suspects. Carry on, boys.. ..or better: don't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Well so what. It is a story about a man who acted very bravely in tough circumstances and got an award. He's very brave. What more can you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In fact . . . Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Well so what. It is a story about a man who acted very bravely in tough circumstances and got an award. He's very brave. What more can you say? How about "Congratulations!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Why? I won't offer that. I have no reason to. I recognise he is brave and that's that. There is no requirement or obligation to congratulate. We're all anonymous posters anyway, I doubt he'd know who was congratulating him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.