Are we hours away from war with Iran??

I think what's going on is an abundance of caution is being exercised, thankfully. The UK is giving Iran every opportunity to release the hostages; the EU is getting involved. The UN will likely get involved. Once all that has occurred, only then will UK do something...because no-one can fault all attempts at diplomacy and then taking action, but you can be assured there will be intense criticism if action is taken before all perceived diplomacy is exhausted.

I am also considering the fact that Passover and Easter are within the next week or so. If the UK wants/needs Israel's support, then that can't be brought until the 10th of April, which is the last day of Passover.

Frankly, here is what I see happening.

~UK continues to demand release.
~Evac of personnel from all ME states; bringing home those who can be evac'd
~Evac from Tehran/Iran of other countries' personnel
~More video and perhaps a "trial" of sorts in the next few days
~More rhetoric from Achmedinijad about how the UK was in Iranian waters
~More vids and letters from the hostages
~Amping up from Iran about the UN sanctions, UK disruption of business, et cetera

And then, sometime shortly after the 10 of April, UK, along with the US most likely, will mount an attack to go in after the hostages. While they are doing this, Israel will air assault the known nuclear facilities.

And from there, all bets are off. You'll see states joining the conflict, and the powderkeg will have been lit. How far and how involved it will get is anyone's guess, but I'm just not hopeful that it will remain simply a "regional" conflict.

This is going to get rather ugly before it gets done with, I think. And while I hope and pray I'm wrong, I don't feel as if I am.

Regards-
Aimless

Well, those hours have passed neon haze.
Spewing.

War with Iran? It wont happen over sailors.

The old grunt bravado days of the 40's/50's where a soliders life meant nothing in the eyes of victory doesnt mean jack here.

wanna know why?...

hell ill tell you anyway.


Blair knows full well, what we have done in the past 4 years has been ILLEGIAL.
And that we have NO GROUND to stand on, when we start accusing arab nations for being agro at us.

c'mon people, we've been detaining iranians in Iraq for how long now?
We've been snooping over their territory for how long?
How many incursions did we make?

Why are people so eager to enter the meat grinder?
Turn of the blinkers, turn off the tv for once.

Pack yourself a bag, by a one way plane ticket to 'somewhere' and just talk to people.
Introduce yourselves, ask questions... maybe then youll realise, the rest of the world doesnt give a flying f''k at the moment about britan and the US.

No one could give a rats ass about these navy men, because they have NO RIGHT to be there.

Sure, the governments might make a public condemnation of Iran, but does that actually mean anything?

The reason Blair hasnt done anything, or set any ultimatums, is because the man.. like 'some' humans.. actually has a brain in his head, and realises..

'' WE FARKED UP, AND WE DESERVE EVERYTHING WE GET ''

I don"t agree, those sailers should be released now and Irans aggressive posture should be dealt with. You have a government there that the people
don't support, you have human right violations and they are supporting the insurgency into Iraq. They must be stopped now.

America or Iran?
sorry I get so confused when people talk about people who dont like their government, or people being held without cause, governments who trample on peoples rights... all that...
seems we are becoming what we hated the most.


The british arent being tortured, or flown to eastern european jails.
They are being fed, and proof of life is coming freely.

Let em sweat a bit more!

Agit8dChop:

It sure sounds like you think Iran is perfectly justified in grabbing the UK soldiers? So you must also think Iran is perfectly justified in threatening to "wipe Israel off of the map?" Is that true or am I misunderestimating your words?

Just for a minute, forget all of the Anti-American blah blah and the I hate Bush blah blah and the we all deserve what we get blah blah. Tell us all what YOU would do to deal with Iran. I'm looking for some constructive ideas - not just arm-chair criticism of what someone else did.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by itguysrule]

Well I believe they said Zionists?
For starters...
Anti American? why thankyou! The wise man is these days.

Iran?

Hmm..

Instead of DENYING him one on one publicised talks, myself ( the American president ) would invite him to camp David.

Where I would sit with him, in a televised room.

And state

'' President, Ahmajadine, thankyou for your time. I understand there's a lot of hostility and anger between us at present, and I feel it is in the best interests of our great nations to solve the horrible conflict we have started in Iraq, and also come to terms on your nuclear activities..

What I propose sir, is a cessation in sanctions on your country, so you can continue to assist your people in thriving through prosperity.
Open up all your nuclear research facilities to continual round the clock inspections.
Allow us, and other nations to freely HELP You reach nuclear power for your citizens. This we believe helps you reach your goal of nuclear power, while at the same time keeps Israel, and the rest of your Arab neighbours at ease, understanding the world is monitoring and assisting in your nuclear activities, without you dabbling in weapons tech. We do not deny you nuclear tech, just the weapons. Allow us to monitor you, and assist you in gaining nuclear tech and this mis-understanding can be averted.

We will allow you this if you help us build a multi-religious government in Iraq, that prioritises a peaceful and democratic nation where shia and sunni can live together. We have done major wrongs in Iraq, and it will engulf the region unless its neighbours come to terms with our mistake and assist us in making it right. Help us stop the civil war, and convince the peopel that a sunni/shi government is whats needed.

Allow us to invest in your vast oil fields, helping you build a rich and prosperous economy based on your resources, allowing us to also gain through co-operation and assistance in building the vast infrastructure required for you to become a major player in the Oil fields.

A civil war in Iraq does either of our nations no good.
Sanctions on your country does neither of our countries no good.
Continual confrontation, and open hostilities does man kind no good, in its search for eternal peace.

Co-operation in your oil fields, in Iraq and in this nuclear matter are what our great nations need to deal with today, to avert all our war and economic catastrophe.

President Ahmajadine, In front of a world audience today I pledge my word, that together we can become great partners in the middle east, together assisting each other.

I ask you for your word, you will cease this hostile action, and help us build peace in the ME.

Do this, and we will for ever be known in the history books as the great nations who averted destruction of mankind.

Do this not, we will be known as the children who couldnt understand each other, instead resorting to war. "


I would then stand up, offer my hand, and allow the world to see, wether this president is interested in peace, and prosperity through co-operation.
Or wether he wants war, and no peace on Earth.

This way, the world can see, I went for peace, before War.
Where as GW and the American Government, seem to chose war, before they sit down and talk for peace.


That simple speech, will then put him on the spot.
We have just pledged to the world that so long as we help each other, we will no longer manipulate and take for granted what each other can do.


The above is not impossible, there’s nothing about it we cant achieve.

problem is, its not man running the show its corporate greed.

Corporate greed does not want to assist in the oil fields, it wants to OWN them.
corporate greed does not want to assist in nuclear tech, its wants to be the monopoly.


That, is what id do.



[edit on 30-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by itguysrule
Agit8dChop:

It sure sounds like you think Iran is perfectly justified in grabbing the UK soldiers?

I can answer this one . . . I guess no more than the prisoners in abu graib or the ones in Guantanamo, at least the British soldiers are not been put on naked pyramids or have then on wooden boxes while receiving electrical shots.

They perhaps do not have to wait 4 years until they decided to confess to be involved on everything done in the world for the last past 20 years.

So you must also think Iran is perfectly justified in threatening to "wipe Israel off of the map?" Is that true or am I misunderestimating your words?

Well that one is getting old, truly if you still believe in that one then the propaganda machine has gotten you.

YOU would do to deal with Iran. I'm looking for some constructive ideas - not just arm-chair criticism of what someone else did.

Well, this one is easy, Iran is a sovereign country and as a sovereign country it has the right to defend itself from aggressors.

Now, I will ask you, who is the aggressor right now invading the middle east?

Originally posted by u4itornot
I don"t agree, those sailers should be released now and Irans aggressive posture should be dealt with.

Agressive? really?

You have a government there that the people
don't support, you have human right violations and they are supporting the insurgency into Iraq. They must be stopped now.

This one is sweet, so what you call what our nation is doing to prisoners in the secret camps they have all over the world?

Or what they did to prisoners in Iraq?

Or Guantanamo.

I guess it most be hard to see things from both sides when all our lives we have been one side blinded.

Originally posted by marg6043
Now, I will ask you, who is the aggressor right now invading the middle east?

Spot on,

We accuse everyone else of being the hostile nation, and yadda yadda.
ITs like no one cares we found no WMD's. our big reason to invade.
To me, that means, we lied.

I feel for the british soliders as human beings.
I do not feel for the government, I actually pitty them.
How are they going to explain this in 10yrs time?
' we put our soliders in danger, when we illegially invaded '

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
How are they going to explain this in 10yrs time?
' we put our soliders in danger, when we illegially invaded '

Exactly, our American soldiers and those of the UK are only seen as humans, brothers, sisters and loves ones to us the regular Joe.

But when it comes to the corrupted governments that are the ones been the aggressors in the middle east they are nothing but numbers and spendable as long as they serve their purposes so the corrupted profiteers of war get their goals.

This what our modernized nations has become . . . open your eyes and denied ignorance and fight the NWO.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by marg6043]

On one hand, that vision is almost laughable when previewing in the mind's eye, Agit8. Don't you think that Bush would have to first undergo some serious mental surgery before attempting a speech like that?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
This way, the world can see, I went for peace, before War.
Where as GW and the American Government, seem to chose war, before they sit down and talk for peace.

Well, as much as I'll bash the administration for lots of things, Agit, be careful with a statement like that concerning IRAN, because in reality, it is exaggeration. We haven't ever exactly knocked Tehran back to the stone age, meaning that up to present, there has been military peace.

Not necessarily public peace though, and this is true. Years of fuss, yeah, but no real military action against Iran other than maybe by proxy, and vice-versa. You have got to admit that through all the rhetoric and threats, there still has been peace. And military patience. As much as I like your posts, I still must help temper you back to the truth! We can't exactly say that this administration prefers war over peace, even with Iraq. There was tons of diplomacy for years, as there has been with Iran.

If I was one of these that felt like the US needs to conquer, meddle with, and dictate other country's methods of government through threat or force, I suppose I'd also be for bombing Tehran back to the ice age right about the time solid evidence surfaced of a clandestine nuclear weapons program. But there is just not enough hard evidence, and frankly if the US was to lead by example, we'd be working hard on global nuclear and WMD disarmament instead. The occurence of a catastrophic nuclear accident or war is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

And what do you think has been holding us back from striking Iran? Hard evidence, when it comes right down to it, imo. If we discovered for instance that Iran had nuclear missiles pointed at Israel or the UK, under this administration I don't think there would have been much hesitation- if there was any on Israel's or UK's part, first...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Well, as much as I'll bash the administration for lots of things, Agit, be careful with a statement like that concerning IRAN, because in reality, it is exaggeration. We haven't ever exactly knocked Tehran back to the stone age, meaning that up to present, there has been military peace.

All good, maybe I should be a bit more technical.
IN 2002 Saddam asked for direct one to one talks with Bush to talk about the wmd issue.
GW denied, saying he would refuse to talk to saddam.
Iran has also asked for direct dialogue with bush, but bush has refused.

I feel we dont really care what they have to say, because we are going to do as we please.

War has been averted to date between Iran n US that is true,
But there's an awful lot of threats, and hostile talk coming from our end, as well as theirs.. if all we want is peace.
there's a better way to gain peace, than to threaten and demand.

Agit8dChop:

I must admit I am impressed by your thoughtful and reasonable plan. Such a meeting would be very interesting to watch. It might just work if the leaders of Iran (whoever they really are) were reasonable people who respected life and international law.

Unfortunately, they seem to respect nothing but expanding their power and influence in the region. They have no problem with lying to anyone for any reason and will stoop to any level of depravity to reach their jihadi dreams. I am fearful that there is no language the Iranian leaders understand or respect except military force. I don't think they will respond positively to any diplomatic initiative other than to exploit it as long as they can with no intention of ever really changing anything.


I know many people would say that the previous paragraph is true about the US or other Western countries as well. It is obvious that we have made many errors and done things that should never have been done, but I strongly disagree with anyone who says that we are as evil as they are. If the US leadership was truly as evil as that of Iran there would be no Iraqi or Iranian problems because there would be no Iraq or Iran to be a problem.

I agree,
I do not think we are as evil as some nations 'can be'

But, I think the men who are incharge have motives, which are the epitomy of evil.
All this death and destruction, for corporate greed.
What a sin.

But, again..
The reason I would make the whole thing live, on TV.
Was so that when the Iranians defected from the plan, stalled, or lied and went against it, the world would be in front row position to see that we, the west tried everything, but in the end they were the ones who wernt interested in peace.

#1 Most of you people don't understand why we are going to war with Iran.

Its not because of Weapons of Mass Destruction!
Its not because of Israel!
Its not because we want to spread Democracy!
Its not because we want to rule to world!
Its not because they captured UK sailors!
Its not because of Oil! USA doesn't get oil from Iran...China Does!

The REAL Reason for the War with Iran is the same reason that we went to war with IRAQ!

To Save The American Dollar!!! About 2 months ago Iran starting selling their Oil in Euros and other currencies. A few months before the Iraq attack they started selling their oil in Euros, and the first thing we did after invading was changing it back to US Dollars.

If the Nations of the World have an alternitive to the US Dollar then they won't be forced to hold US Dollar Reserves...which means they won't be forced to purchase our Treasury Debt...which will lead to Serious Liquidity Problems for the American Govt, and it would also lead to Hyper Inflation here at home as they sell their dollars for other currencies, all our those dollars will be sent back to america.

Recently China made a Huge Deal To Aquire Oil from Venezuala, the reason for this is because they know Americas plan to invade, and they have approved it, afterall they hold the largest amount of American Dollars...and anything that would hurt the dollar would also hurt China by decreasing the value of the American Debt that they own.

I know what you asking yourselves... If Both the Iraq War and the Iran War is to protect the Value of the US Dollar, then why doesn't the Govt just say thats the reason...the answer is that FEAR is a much greater motivater, and Vanity wouldn't gather the support from the Devout Christian crowd.

Does This Make Any Sense To You? Do You Understand Now?

War With Iran Is Innevitable...

Do I support the war? No

"Can't We All Just Get Along?"

News to me?

Exclusive: Iranians Had Showdown With U.S. Forces
By Anna Mulrine
Posted 3/23/07
As the British government demanded the immediate release of 15 of its sailors whose boats were seized by Iranian naval vessels in the Persian Gulf on Friday, U.S. News has learned that this is not the first showdown that coalition forces have had with the Iranian military.

According to a U.S. Army report out of Iraq obtained by U.S. News, American troops, acting as advisers for Iraqi border guards, were recently surrounded and attacked by a larger unit of Iranian soldiers, well within the border of Iraq.

The report highlights the details: A platoon of Iranian soldiers on the Iraqi side of the border fired rocket-propelled grenades and used small arms against a joint patrol of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers east of Balad Ruz. Four Iraqi Army soldiers, one interpreter, and one Iraqi border policeman remain unaccounted for after the September incident in eastern Diyala, 75 miles east of Baghdad.

Full text: /2jq72c


Response to Query from the 101st Airborne Division: www.usnews.com...



This story appears to be from a credible source, and the incident was still under investigation at the time the 'Response to Query' was published.

Thankfully, no US personal were lost, or injured, but one has to wonder how often similar incidents occur...unreported.

I apologize in advance if this is old ATS news.


Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

Well, this one is easy, Iran is a sovereign country and as a sovereign country it has the right to defend itself from aggressors.

Now, I will ask you, who is the aggressor right now invading the middle east?

So what do we do about that little problem called WMDs? Sure we didn't find any in Iraq and maybe we got that totally wrong, but where do we draw the line? Does our "humanity" require us to do nothing until someone develops a weapon and kills a million or more people in the US or Europe? Are we expected to stand idle and allow anyone to develop any kind of weapon or military capability they want as long as they deny it or we can't prove it? Do you truly think we should TRUST countries like Iran to build WMDs since they PROMISE they won't use it on us or give it to one of their little buddies?

Are we the aggressor right now invading the middle east? You're damn right we are! Are we there for corporate greed and evil imperial goals? I don't think so - but even if we are I still think we need to be there. It would be nice if we could all hold hands and be brothers, but that isn't the world we live in yet. It would be nice if we could solve any dispute with negotiations and international law and sanctions as the ultimate weapon, but that isn't our world either.

I think the days of sitting behind our borders and leaving everyone else alone are past. We can't depend upon deterrence and diplomacy to protect us from people who don't fear death and view us as lower than dog vomit. We can't allow people who hate our very existence to have WMDs even if that means we have to invade their country and kill a lot of people and take their weapons away from them. We must defend our way of life and our version of civilization, no matter what it takes, or we will watch it be destroyed.

Let the flaming replies begin . . .

news.sky.com...

Ekkkk!!!

Agit8dChop posted ID:3075378

I thought about this post for awhile and I got to say,
Well said, my friend well said.

You know reading that make me wonder what else others would do,
theres many people who put down others for what they say and think yet
wouldn't even answer that question of what they would do.

I mean

I have talked to some friends about whats going on in the world, it kinda hurts knowing that most of them don't know or don't care. The ones that I do know whats going on ( -1) usually say is nuke em. The -1 bud would talk it out and well just informed me a little bit a go in email his sister is on her way back to Iraq.

Maybe there should be a topic or something called what would you do?
and see the answers (no trash talk no arguing the others thoughts one post per person of what they would do)

[edit] nvm didn't see your topic you made [/edit]

[edit on 3/31/2007 by EvilBat]

Ok..
I've seen a lot of angry, sad, confused, frustrated people here, most obviously the majority being British and some Americans as well.

Let me tell it my way.

This Agit8chop gentleman may be putting it forth a little harsh; with the whole bit about, who is in the wrong in the Middle East etc etc...

Well its true, but maybe it needs to be explained in another way:


(A)
The US & co are in the MiddleEast for a reason; and it is NOT spreading democracy.. I think we've all admitted to that at least.
All those accompanying the US are in it for the same 'reasons'.
Now there's nothing moral about it agreed..
AND there's NOTHING wrong with it either. Yes, nothing wrong with it.
C'mon, if moralities and the absolute 'rights' and 'wrongs' goverened the stretegic policies of Nations then we would all be a bunch of skirt-toting pansies!!
The US a& co. decided that operation 'gatecrash middlewast' was:
1) worth the international/UN backlash,
2)was not something that would(or infact could) irk Russia/China to respond by raising the ante.
3)was all-things a 'good deal' for them.

So there; good for US & co, except they kind of misgauged the terror backlash: occupational hazard. Unfortunately the Iraqi civilians are caught in it all, for no fault of their own.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)
Now fast forward to the incident at the Al-Shattar waterway.

Firstly it seems that the British were operating under a UN mandate.
But were they really?
I mean were they ACTUALLY Blue Beret UN Forces(the likes of whcih we see in Kosovo,Africa, Lebanon etc)

This is a Blue Beret:


Was the British role something like this?

I may be wrong but I think it wasn't any of the above.

The HMS Cornwall is deployed in the Gulf to 'secure and protect' Iraq's economic interests in the region under 'Operation Telic'.
What is 'Operation Telic'?
Its the British version of 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
Wow..
Its all here:

orthern Arabian Gulf - On 6th March 2007, HMS Cornwall took up station to defend Iraq’s economic commodities just off their coast in the North Arabian Gulf. This mission forms part of the Royal Navy’s commitment to the area under Operation Telic and is vital to the future of Iraq....

.....HMS Cornwall will take her place amongst a multinational Naval Force, including ships from the US Navy, US Coast Guard, Royal Australian Navy and the Iraqi Navy....

....As well as hosting CTF 158 staff, HMS Cornwall also has a distinct mission in the area.
She will be one of a number of ships providing 24 hours a day protection to Iraq’s two Oil Terminals just off its coast; this is a role that the UK and coalition forces have fulfilled for the last three years....

Source

The source is a RN press brief itself.
Now for the life of me I cannot find absolutely anything which makes this fall under a UN-esque mission.
All bolden text in the above excerpt indicates that the HMS Cornwall is in a CTF that is purely 'coalition'(US & co) based.

If its was an actual UN mission through-n-through it could contain RN ships, agreed, but it would be most logical to place 'neutral' forces in the area for the SAME mission.
By neutral I mean something like the news article I inked before. Purely UN driven, neutral parties involved.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)

Now that we've linked (A) and (B); we can chuck out absolutely everything about moralities involved, the absolute 'rights' and 'wrongs' etc etc. with respect to this incident.

Hec, the 'position' of the British sailors at the time of the abduction is actually absolutely irrelevant; Everyone who's someone w.r.t. this will know that.
They could'v been sleeping in their bunks onboard the HMS Cornwall and it wouldn't really matter.

When you're a 'few' nautical miles off the coast of another sovereign power that is not taking kindly to your presence, you'd better be prepared for anything; like I said.... 'Occupational Hazard'.

I am Indian. If I hear of a Pak Naval vessel conducting 'anti-terror' operations even say 50 miles(maybe even 100) beyond my territorial waters, hec.. I'm sure the IN would send a few really 'low' up close-n-personal aircraft sorties to make em' .... umm.. remember their mommies.Maybe send in a ~6000 tonner Destroyer instead;same purpose.

Don't get me wrong; We (India) would do that to USN ships(or anyone else) as well, if there was a situation where we were not on very good terms with the 'US & co'(or anyone else).
Of course no offence and nothing personal. We (anybody capable) would not like un-friendlies in our backyard esp when we have the ability to exert our presence there.

Iran cannot do that to the 'US & co' because they don't have the capability and the force advantage on their side. Its a pity that this is the case for them just a few miles off their coast, but they've got to play with the cards they've been dealt.
And that's EXACTLY what they've done, and they've played them well if this incident achieves whatever objectives they'd set out with.

The fact that this did not happen in international waters does score points for the US & Co., agreed, but Iraqi waters or Iranian; its all moot.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you go ahead and start a war over this if you'd like.
IMHO that's really not required or even wanted for the US & co right now; esp since those sailors would be back unharmed eventually.

Summarizing (A),(B) and (C), my point is that the sailors and those who sent the sailors them there, knew the risks involved.
There was never any moral 'prop' to it all, and even if there was it doesn't really matter.
So lets move beyond the 'international law' and 'UN mandate' and all that jazz.

It is indeed tragic that this has happened and I hope common sense prevails in the decision making rooms. T
ill then we can talk about how to get those guys back, how it happened, and how it can/could have been avoided.

But lets not try to justify a new war due to the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of what have taken place.
If you want to 'screw' the Iranians; go ahead, you can defintely put a dent in their works; but then be prepared for the consequences and don't try to justify it as 'moral' undertaking.

I hope I have been able to explain what I wanted to say,

DD3