Russia-China Warn US That Israeli Attack On Iran Means "World War"

Run_to_da_hills

This is scary stuff, I don't trust Israel or the IDF one iota, even their own soldiers have recently come out with statements testifying orders from above on the recent atrocities of Gaza.

On the other hand the climate is ripe for a major war, we have learned from history that previous depressions drew countries into war.

"A chilling report circulating in the Kremlin today states that President Medvedev and Chinese President Hu have issued an “ urgent warning ” to the United States that says if the Americans allow an Israeli nuclear attack upon Iran, “ World War will be our response ”. Fueling Russian and Chinese fears are intelligence reports stating that Israel has moved over three-quarters of its Naval Forces through the Suez Canal and has assembled over 30 of its US-built fighter jets in Kurdistan for a planned attack using American made “ bunker busting ” bombs and nuclear armed cruise".

http://www.cfciowa.org/K017/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=255:russia-china-warn-us-that-israeli-attack-on-iran-means-world-war&catid=4:national-news&Itemid=7

oisinmc14

bout time some1 stood up to isreal they have been causing havoc in the middle-east for years if they do attack Iran they deserve a heavy response

Captain Chaos

oisinmc14 wrote: »

bout time some1 stood up to isreal they have been causing havoc in the middle-east for years if they do attack Iran they deserve a heavy response

It happened before in 1967 in the 6 day war. Egypt, Jordan and Syria launched a combined attack on Israel. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and others provided troops and equipment.

The Israeli air force and army wiped out the entire air forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and crippled their attacking ground forces in 6 days.

So I think Israel have a right to be pissed being surrounded by hostile countries.

indough

youre not allowed to speak sense regarding israel around here though, theyre automatically in the wrong

bonkey

indough wrote: »

youre not allowed to speak sense regarding israel around here though, theyre automatically in the wrong

If you trying to make a complaint, then this isn't the place for it.

If you're not trying to make a complaint, then this isn't really on-topic.

watty

Where is the CT?

It's well known that various countries have threaten Israel if they move against Syria, Iran etc.

It's well known Iran want's "Israel wiped off map"

Afganistan next door to Iran is the "elephant in the room" on this.

Arab countries rejected the UN proposal in 1948 that would have made Israel smaller. Israel accepted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East

Syria claims Lebannon, Jordan and Israel.

No country recognised the Jordanian annexation of the "west bank", which they lost in 1967 after being begged NOT to enter the war.

Egypt & Saudi fought a Proxy War via Yemen for nearly 10 years.

Syria has consistently interfered with Lebanon.

Iraq invaded Kuwait.

The Kurds fight everyone (and vice versa) including Turks, Syrians, Iranians and formerly the Iraqis.

The Druse and Bedouin are chased from pillar to post by the Arabs.

The Arabs and Iranians hate each other.

The Palestinians are despised by the other Arabs who only find them a convenient stick to beat the Israelis with. The Iranians and Arabs have done little in 70 years other than exploit the Palestinians and send them weapons. Lots of promises and rhetoric, little practical help.

Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Eqypt and Turkey are beset by Islamic fundamentalist unrest. In the tiny handful of Arab countries with elected MPs the Ruling Family or President dictator is in charge.

Hamas and PLO want to kill each other.

Israel is a problem, but not the biggest one.

The last conspiracy in ME was the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement which IMO is responsible for a large proportion of the trouble over the last 60 years.

helios12

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It happened before in 1967 in the 6 day war. Egypt, Jordan and Syria launched a combined attack on Israel. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and others provided troops and equipment.

The Israeli air force and army wiped out the entire air forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and crippled their attacking ground forces in 6 days.

So I think Israel have a right to be pissed being surrounded by hostile countries.

Does this justify the land grabs?

Amalgam

Russia trades a fair bit with Iran. The topography of the area, socially and politically, has changed a lot since 1967. It might not seem that way through western media's eyes. I doubt you'd get such a clean repeat of events.

watty

helios12 wrote: »

Does this justify the land grabs?

No. Though the sides don't agree even on what is a land grab. Some Arab countries are less willing than Israel to see a Palestinian State. Who is the land grabbed from since no Palestinian State has ever existed and no-one recognised Jordan's land grab after 1948?

Anyway, no shortage of abuses and wrongs on every side. Plenty done wrong by Israeli Gov and individuals.

But where is the Conspiracy, or Conspiracy Theory?

helios12

watty wrote: »

No. Though the sides don't agree even on what is a land grab. Some Arab countries are less willing than Israel to see a Palestinian State. Who is the land grabbed from since no Palestinian State has ever existed and no-one recognised Jordan's land grab after 1948?

Anyway, no shortage of abuses and wrongs on every side. Plenty done wrong by Israeli Gov and individuals.

But where is the Conspiracy, or Conspiracy Theory?

I was referring specifically to Israel settling civilian populations in military zones which is illegal under international law. As far as I know only the U.S and Israel have refused to recognise and to a large extent hindered a Palestinian state.

But ya, I do not see a conspiracy here either?

philologos

I personally do not think that China and Russia would ever follow through on such a threat. Besides, isn't Israel a sovereign state of it's own. Who is to say that the USA is behind every single Israeli military action?

espinolman

watty wrote: »

It's well known Iran want's "Israel wiped off map"

No Ahmadinejed in fact said ' zionism will die away with the sands of time' and the controlled western media translated that as "Israel wiped off map"
now i am sorry but the fact is we don't have a free media here in the west ,not even here in ireland .

watty

If you lived in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Eqypt or Jordan you would have a different viewpoint about Free Media.

I wasn't quoting Ahmadinejed. However his views are well known.

nowregistered12

watty wrote: »

Israel is a problem, but not the biggest one.

A nice breakdown of the ME situation. But strangely no mention of the the US? Anyway, seems the rest of the EU would disagree with you. In a EU commissioned poll as recently as 2003 Israel was named as "the top threat to world peace", apparently chosen by 59% of the 15,000 EU members.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/israel.eu

Who or what is the biggest threat in your opinion? I mean without banding together all Muslim countries as one and disregarding localised faction fighting, internal problems etc.

watty

Well, the USA isn't physically in M.E.

I was only looking the ME region.

Most Europeans' attitude about Israel is based on Media and Arab Propaganda. Not 1st hand experience or research. Europe has a large M.E. origin and also Muslim minorities.
US has a a large vocal Jewish Minority.
Hence different (unrealistic in both cases) attitudes to Israel and M.E.

The US is likely only concerned about ME countries with Oil /Gas or Nuclear weapons. Hence they don't much care or take notice of Jordan or Lebanon.

Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt are important to USA strategically. Ultimately Israel is of little interest to EU compared to USA (5.6Million USA Votes, customer for Weapons, Nuclear club).

Iran is very unstable. Two former Presidents are critical of Status Quo. They are probably not involved supplying Hamas, but are involved in Lebanon and Iraq (Hezbollah are Iranian clients).

Iraq will be a problem when USA leave.

Syria is a massive issue as they claim Lebanon, Palestine/Israel and Jordan as their territory.

Egypt could be become a Muslim State of extreme nature (propped up by West at present) as could Turkey (East /West divide of ME/Europe Muslim/Secular at the Mountains.

The European portion of Turkey, known as Thrace (Turkish: Trakya), encompasses 3% of the total area but is home to more than 10% of the total population. Istanbul, the largest city of Europe and Turkey, has a population of 11,372,613. Thrace is separated from the Asian portion of Turkey by the Bosporus (Turkish: İstanbul Boğazı), the Sea of Marmara (Turkish: Marmara Denizi), and the Dardanelles (Turkish: Çanakkale Boğazı).

This is why USA is pressuring EU to admit Turkey (an idea that coould backfire badly if the non-secular Asian Muslim majority came to power.) Of course the CT is that USA wants Turkey in EU to weaken EU.

Israel has no Gas or Oil, Like Jordan and Lebanon.

Saudi Arabia is a vast country relying on Oil Wealth for the Ruling family to hold control, Saudi Oil reserves are allegedly as much as 40 years ago without significant new finds. What happens when the oil runs out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia

Proven reserves are estimated to be 260 billion barrels (41 km³), about one-quarter of world oil reserves.

Actually this is frankly not believable any more. From 2004
http://www.iags.org/n0331043.htm

Saudi Arabia has over 300 recognized reservoirs but 90% of its oil comes from the five super giant fields discovered between 1940 and 1965. Since the 1970s there haven't been new discoveries of giant fields. The most significant of the oil fields is Ghawar. Found in 1948, the 300-mile-long sliver near the Persian Gulf is the world's largest oil field and accounts for 55%-60% of all Saudi oil produced. Ghawar's current proven reserves are 12% of the world's total. The field produces 5 mbd, which is 6.25% of the world's oil production. According to Simmons, Ghawar's northern regions are almost depleted. Two other giant fields, Abqaiq and Berri, also seem to have peaked in the 1970s.

Google Oil and gas for each M.E. / Asian Country from Libya to Turkey, Yemen to Afganistan to Armenia etc..

It would certainly be a major threat to world peace if ANYONE in ME (Syria, Egypt, Iran or Israel) used Nuclear Weapon.

None of the Arabs are fond of Iran (putting it mildly), so while the Arabs would shout loudest with Rhetoric, yes the risk of Russia or China doing something if Israel attacked Iran FIRST is higher than the Arab Countries doing anything. In event of Iran / Israel War, Syria is the most likely to enter and only if it looks like Iran might win. As the Palestinians know, the Arab governments are good on Rhetoric and poor on action.

watty

The BIG M.E. Conspiracy is lying about how much oil & gas there is?

The Russians have threatened to stop all oil and gas getting to the area, and the chinese have said they'll stop buying U.S. debt immediatly if Israel attacks..

WakeUp

The whole idea, in my opinion, of the US & British genocidal rampage in the middle east has nothing to do with operation “Enduring Freedom”, what a crock of ****e, but is one of land & resources and Iran. Israel has a part to play and soon.

Look at a map of the middle east on either side of Iran you have Iraq & Afghanistan, the US fifth fleet is based in Bahrain , Persian Gulf, 2 US carrier strike groups have been operating on and off over the past few years in the Arabian sea just outside Iranian territorial waters. Iran if attacked would have to fight on 3 fronts should it have to defend itself.
The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan/Afghan border, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Turkmenistan is a member of NATO. Iran is militarily surrounded.





http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9817
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incirlik_Air_Base
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5762371.ece
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5322
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp053008.shtml


US and British forces needed to first establish military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan before they even considered taking on the Iranians. This has now been achieved. To attempt an attack on Iran it involves taking out over 10,000 targets (in the first day), according to a leaked US Army estimate. The bombing of Baghdad in the first few days of the Iraq invasion would seem like a walk in the park compared to this. Any bombing will need to be followed up with a massive invasion of ground forces into Iran to secure the country.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8861


The only way Israel could hope to damage Iranian nuclear facilities is by using tactical nuclear weapons, conventional bombs will not do the job. In my opinion Israel will use them. If the US were to directly use nuclear weapons it would then face the possibility of immediate nuclear retaliation from either Russia or China so the Israelis will drop them.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece


Any go it alone strike on Iran from Israel will require back-handed US permission to fly over Iraqi airspace, the US still control Iraqi airspace, and the Iranians know this. This is how the US will become involved imo. It is technically a declaration of war. That and Iran has stated that any Israeli attack on its country would be met with a direct response aimed at US troops based in the Persian Gulf, along with Israel.
The Israeli air-force does not have the ability to directly hit Iran and return “safely” without the use of US airspace (Iraq). They have ruled out suicide missions for their pilots, incase the Iranians retrieve damaged or downed Israeli modified F16’S. The Israeli fighter jets, F15’S & F16’s, have an operational limit of 820m without refueling, doesn’t even get them to Tehran and back unless the fly through US controlled Iraqi air-space, (enabling them to safely refuel mid-air en route) which they will. According to some sources Saudi Arabia will allow the use of its air-space for an attack on Iran.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1098726.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99822&sectionid=351020104
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6638568.ece


This thread is from military.net. The chap that put this together claims to be an amateur but it is pretty well done and worth a look he uses google earth for some of his images. It is Iranian air-defenses surrounding some of the targets that will be hit if Israel attacks.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=129494


Iran is the big one in my opinion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5842963/Israeli-warships-rehearse-for-Iran-attack-in-Red-Sea.html

watty

Israel will never use Nuclear weapons first.

Some aspects of what you say is beleivable *if* there was a goal to invade Iran. But look where Israel is compared to the other enemies of Iran.


Afganistan would not be a suitable place to invade Iran from any time soon as they are losing there and talking about the campaign taking 30 years.

WakeUp

watty wrote: »

Israel will never use Nuclear weapons first.

What makes you so certain of that?...

watty wrote: »

Some aspects of what you say is beleivable *if* there was a goal to invade Iran. But look where Israel is compared to the other enemies of Iran.

All countries have attack/invasion war plans for perceived enemies. Look at the military build up in the middle- east and threats being issued against Iran which pretty much speak for themselves.

Could you elaborate a little please on what you mean when you say “look at where Israel is compared to the other enemies of Iran”

watty wrote: »

Afganistan would not be a suitable place to invade Iran from any time soon as they are losing there and talking about the campaign taking 30 years.

That’s not really accurate actually. Granted the British are losing a few soldiers in Helmand province I would hardly call it losing though and recently the US deployed 20,000 troops to Afghanistan. These US troops are currently sweeping the country engaging the “enemy”. The US are planning to hand over control of Iraq to Iraqi forces and soon enough.
When this happens it will free up something like 130,000 US troops. In my opinion at least half of that number will be deployed to Afghanistan maybe more, the remainder staying on “overwatch” in Iraq.

watty

Well re: Afganistan I was only repeating what I heard on BBC R4 in the last few days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8162402.stm

The US is prepared to bolster the defence of Gulf allies if Iran develops nuclear arms, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says.

There is no love lost between Iran and any Gulf or M.E. Arab state.
1) Iranians aren't Arabs. Calling an Iranian an Arab to his face is "interesting".
2) Most Moslem Arabs have a different Flavour of Islam to Iran. The two branches of Islam get on about as well as Calvinists and the Spanish Inquisition*.

RE: Israel & Iran.
Iraq and Jordan are between the two. Iranian Missiles can be intercepted. Also Missile bases are not as hardened targets as the centrifuges to re-process fuel for warheads. In first Gulf war Israel did nothing as Iraqi missiles hit Israel. They are likely to let Syria or Iran fire at least one shot first. Apart from US Interceptors in Iraq, Kuwait and Gulf, they have their own.

(* Did you know "Protestants" burnt more people for Witchcraft than the Spanish Inquisition did? I doubt many or maybe any were Witches even though there were/are such people).

WakeUp

watty wrote: »

Well re: Afganistan I was only repeating what I heard on BBC R4 in the last few days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8162402.stm

Ok I am assuming that the above article you linked has very little to do with what you heard on the radio. The link you provided says nothing about “losing” or being there for “30” years, to be honest I don’t know why you have linked it.
When Clinton speaks of “Gulf Allies” she is referring to countries who are members of the “Arab States of the Persian Gulf”. These countries are Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab emirates. Bolstering the “Gulf Allies” has nothing to do with Afghanistan.

watty wrote: »

There is no love lost between Iran and any Gulf or M.E. Arab state.
1) Iranians aren't Arabs. Calling an Iranian an Arab to his face is "interesting".
2) Most Moslem Arabs have a different Flavour of Islam to Iran. The two branches of Islam get on about as well as Calvinists and the Spanish Inquisition*.

I am aware Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians. I have no idea what you are getting at or why you are telling me the above though, maybe you could explain please.

watty wrote: »

RE: Israel & Iran.
Iraq and Jordan are between the two. Iranian Missiles can be intercepted. Also Missile bases are not as hardened targets as the centrifuges to re-process fuel for warheads. In first Gulf war Israel did nothing as Iraqi missiles hit Israel. They are likely to let Syria or Iran fire at least one shot first. Apart from US Interceptors in Iraq, Kuwait and Gulf, they have their own.

I can’t see how that’s relevant to what we are talking about could you explain what you mean a little clearer please.

watty wrote: »

(* Did you know "Protestants" burnt more people for Witchcraft than the Spanish Inquisition did? I doubt many or maybe any were Witches even though there were/are such people).

No I did not know that but it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about and is totally irrelevant, no offence. Lets leave that at that.

watty

The Thread is about Iran & Israel.

With more forces in the Gulf, Iran and Israel are less likely to attack each other.

The point about Arabs etc, is that Arab states / Iran are as likely to attack each other and that in practice if there was a provocation from Iran of a military non-nuclear nature and Israel made a non-Nuclear response, the Arabs and Russians would be Big on Rhetoric and low on Action.

TBH I'd worry more about Pakistan Nuclear Weapons if the Islamists took power instead of Military or Democratic Government than Iranian. Unless the Iranians and Israelis both go mad and change their modus operandi, neither will be first to use the Nuclear weapon.

Someone said the other day, why fuss about Nuclear Disarmament? No-one has used one since 1945.

WakeUp

watty wrote: »

The Thread is about Iran & Israel.

With more forces in the Gulf, Iran and Israel are less likely to attack each other.

I think you are missing the point Iran is not going to attack anybody. It is Israel doing all the mouthing off. If and when they attack, Iran will respond, then it will escalate.

watty wrote: »

The point about Arabs etc, is that Arab states / Iran are as likely to attack each other and that in practice if there was a provocation from Iran of a military non-nuclear nature and Israel made a non-Nuclear response, the Arabs and Russians would be Big on Rhetoric and low on Action.

It is the Israel/US being provocative, Iran is well aware it doesnt have many friends in the Arab world. Iran could take on the Arab armies no problem and win, the Arab nations want the US/Israel to deal with them so they dont have to, Iran has the 9th largest army in the world, just under a million men with 400,000 in reserve. The Russians on the other hand are notoriously hard to read personally I cant see how you can say that with such certainty but it is your opinion and your entitled to that.

watty

Title Russia-China Warn US That Israeli Attack On Iran Means “World War”

Important bit in bold.
So...
1) How likely is such an attack?
2) What scenarios are there?
3) Who else might attack Iran or Israel or be attacked by either leading to scenario warned by Russian/Chinese?
3) How likely afterward is reponse by:
- Russians
- Chinese
- Arab Neighbours (all the mutual neighbours are Arab).
4) What are the Dynamics of the Region?
-Are the Arab neighbours / enemies of Iran allies or "competitors" only united in dislike of Iran and Israel.
5) The context is "Americans allow an Israeli nuclear attack upon Iran". How likely is this? (various background points made by various people).
6) Is (a) it likely at all that Israel would use a Nuke other than in response to a Nuke and (b) that the US, esp with Obama rather than "WMD" Bush running it "allow" in any sense the Israeli to Nuke Iran.
7) "The Allies" are "bogged down in Afghanistan. It may be a neighbour, but not very relevant to this issue.

IMO the original release is typical Rhetoric. Nothing to do with realities on the ground.

WakeUp

watty wrote: »

Title Russia-China Warn US That Israeli Attack On Iran Means “World War”

Important bit in bold.
So...
1) How likely is such an attack?
2) What scenarios are there?
3) Who else might attack Iran or Israel or be attacked by either leading to scenario warned by Russian/Chinese?
3) How likely afterward is reponse by:
- Russians
- Chinese
- Arab Neighbours (all the mutual neighbours are Arab).
4) What are the Dynamics of the Region?
-Are the Arab neighbours / enemies of Iran allies or "competitors" only united in dislike of Iran and Israel.
5) The context is "Americans allow an Israeli nuclear attack upon Iran". How likely is this? (various background points made by various people).
6) Is (a) it likely at all that Israel would use a Nuke other than in response to a Nuke and (b) that the US, esp with Obama rather than "WMD" Bush running it "allow" in any sense the Israeli to Nuke Iran.
7) "The Allies" are "bogged down in Afghanistan. It may be a neighbour, but not very relevant to this issue.

IMO the original release is typical Rhetoric. Nothing to do with realities on the ground.

Have you actually been reading my replies? If you read back over what I have written and followed the links aswell, you would see that most if not all of your questions have been answered.

watty

I was offering my opinions.

bonkey

watty wrote: »

I was offering my opinions.

Opinions phrased as questions? Of your 7 points, 6 were questions.

You did, to be fair, offer a one-line opinion after posing these questions.

watty

My earlier posts were opinions on those answers questions?

What I mean is that my previous post(s) was accused of being off topic and they were IMO, answers and backgrounds to those questions, which I regarded as on-topic for the thread.

Will I re-post the questions and answers all interleaved more logically?

Or am I still digging?

watty

China has agreed with Clinton that Iran can't have Nuclear Weapons.

It's all about oil, and the lack of it.

The Arabs especially have been lying about reserves for years.

http://www.independent.ie/business/world/oil-crunch-will-cripple-recovery-1849681.html

Monday August 03 2009

The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.

uncle_sam_ie

Russia and China will never allow the west to take control of Iran. It would be game over geopolitically for them if that were to happen. The US would have complete access to the Caspian sea and it's vast gas and oil reserves making Russia irrelevant. It would also add a new and dangerous place to threaten Russia. China would be totally at the west's mercy when it came to energy and I can't see then allowing that to happen. Russia knows its bloody history. They made it clear last August to the US that they will fight if pushed.

Martyr

there's a good analysis of the iran/russia/US situation by pepe escobar on trnn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uowvTCtZws

very informative.

whatever the western media tells us about nuclear weapons, it's obvious the US government wants control of Irans oil reserves.

watty

Oil is why they are in Iraq and Iran.

Lebannon, Israel, Gaza, Westbank and Jordan have no oil.

Martyr

part 2 of pepes analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UY_rxOlly4

part 3 will discuss the relationship between china/iran.

Captain Furball

Iran Replaces The US Dollar With The Euro…And So It Begins


Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has ordered the replacement of the US dollar by the euro in the country’s foreign exchange accounts.
The September 12 edict was issued following a decision by the trustees of the country’s foreign reserves, Mehr News Agency reported.

Captain Furball

That didn't take long.

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 23 (Reuters) - The United States and other major powers on Wednesday told Iran to prepare a "serious response" by Oct. 1 to demands it halt its nuclear program or risk the consequences.

Nick_oliveri

Captain Furball wrote: »

Iran Replaces The US Dollar With The Euro…And So It Begins


Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has ordered the replacement of the US dollar by the euro in the country’s foreign exchange accounts.
The September 12 edict was issued following a decision by the trustees of the country’s foreign reserves, Mehr News Agency reported.

Alright, source please! I need to see that one from a reputable site!
Wasn't there a short "will they/wont they" moment in the GWB2 years with Iran, NK and the "Axis of Evil"?

The phrase was attributed to former Bush speechwriter David Frum, originally as the axis of hatred and then evil......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

watty wrote:

The Arabs especially have been lying about reserves for years.

And there we have it! The "rare" occasion when two supposed conspiracies intertwine. Peak Oil and WW3.

I can see why people would assume that Iraq and Afghanistan are intended invasion/surrounding points for Iran. But as has been noted, the war in Afghanistan isn't going very well. Maybe it was the target during the GWB and Blair fearmongering years, maybe they decided it wasn't the best thing to do considering the situation in both the occupied countries!

Maybe even they were and are testing the public and the political response to the thought of an Iranian invasion....

All that will happen though, is another stalemate, the catch-22 reminiscent of the cold war era. (minus the propaganda :pac: )

watty wrote:

Someone said the other day, why fuss about Nuclear Disarmament? No-one has used one since 1945.

[^^ Above Quote used to "bolster" my previous paragraph!]

I thought some points of Amedinijad's (sorry) speech the other day were true. If anyone wants me to be specific about which points I might watch it again and PM said person, sure I've **** all else to do tomorrow morning!

Captain Furball

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Alright, source please! I need to see that one from a reputable site!
Wasn't there a short "will they/wont they" moment in the GWB2 years with Iran, NK and the "Axis of Evil"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

Actually I think the axis of evil should include America and the UK.

That's a link to the associated press but I know it's not reputable.

http://www.reuters.com/article/asianCurrencyNews/idUSKAL13810020090921

The House of Rothschild bought Reuters news service in the 1800's. Within the last 20 years, Reuters bought the Associated Press.
Obviously you might trust them because they brought you such things as the iraq war, Afghanistan war, osama bin came man and his 20 terrorist sheep, and all the other crap countries national news comes from. The "wire" as they call it. More like the liar.....