oh go on, just one then..
Not much talk about this then.....

Is nobody else worried about US (possibly/probably UK too) intentions towards Iran?
Over the last decade it has been systematically surrounded by our forces and allegences formed with neighbouring countries. If you look at the geography, then we have this:

Oman, UAE, Kuwait and to some extent Saudi will allow US/UK troops to pretty much do as they please on their land. As one example, the only reason the Omani Sultan is in power is because UK troops helped him remove his own father from the throne some decades ago (I would hastily add that Oman is a better place under his rule, he holds far more liberal values than his father did), so let's say he owes them a few favours. Then we have Turkey at the northern tip of Iran which gives the 'western' air forces pretty much unlimited use of air bases. To the east, we are already deployed in Afghanistan, have military bases there and we ain't pulling out anytime soon. Pakistan currently sides firmly with US interests as far as 'the war on terror' is concerned.
Iraq....well what can I say. Possibly the moneypot for activites to come? Plenty of oil... :Wink3:

Just a matter of time before Iran gets it? The 3rd world war is firmly underway my friends, it's happening slowly and systematically. I feel we are worrying too much about smaller incidents (whether domestic or abroad, should we call them minor distractions) and need to address the bigger picture.

How much was a trip on a shuttle to the space station again?.......

Any views?
Go on then kiddies,

Lets all play thermo-nuclear war,

In a game of I destroyed my body!

The best thing I saw
Said there is nothing wrong
We are just having a strange conversation¬


Risky...took me a while to work up a reply....dam fine subject thread, if i may say so....though i think a couple of others have raised related issues.

....thoughts as follows.....

as to, whether Iran should have nuclear weapons..

games with tactical nuclear weapons are very different from games of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) followed since the end of WW2. although MAD still appears to operate, notably between India and Pakistan and about and within 'greater' China.

The things that mark out the India Pakistan stand-off come down to:

a) no one could actually stop them anyway

b) they followed basic MAD strategy and 'declared'/demonstrated capability.

c) both countries are regarded as having the political and technical infrastructure to support ongoing management of the issues involved - including importantly, 'safety' and diplomacy.

it's notable that even the great USSR ended up (post Perestroika)with a nuclear arsenal it couldn’t maintain, a good fraction of which finding new owners through the black market.

how stable is iran likely to be, over the next fifty years? many observers suggest it is a lot less fragile than it looks, although reformists and hardline conservatives keep it bubbling vigorously as it attempts to implement supposedly Chinese style reform of foreign policy and economics. people who disagree are still executed, to my knowledge.

are nuclear weapons any safer in the hands of large states with intellectually challenged politicians, corrupt economic systems and near fanatical ideologies (ie. the US, UK, et al), than small states (eg. Iran, Iraq, Israel)? I think the answer is probably not; they don’t have the history for it. Iran quite understandably desires to hold the same degree of power over neighboring states as America holds over Iran, and the rest of the world: And, there’s the rub.

Whilst talk of first-strike, tactical use of nuclear weapons is undoubtedly a real plan for many of the maniacs running the US Defense Department, such 'voices off' are also being used to call a show of cards; re-weighting the world mythology of fear back in the US's favour. ('..yeah, see...we've got some real sick shit-heads back in control over here too....just watch us if we dont...')

It appears to become a self-fulfilling prophecy; if Iran does have any means to develop nuclear weapons, then it will, and must, if for no other reason than to counter US 'influence' in their sphere - although there are plenty of other reasons it could choose. I would not see it taking up any first use scenario's, particularly with Israel; it doesnt fit in with Irans development policy or its statuted (nuclear) defence policy, so long that is, as they are able to maintain adequate political stability, domestic and foreign.

As with North Korea, the trade-off presented to the rest of the world is, how far it is the rest of the world willing to assist with this 'national' development process in order to obtain a minimum level of transparency and compliance, most particularly when it comes to WMD. The understandable demonisation of each others political status by both sides - further rub to the issue.

Having seen all this coming, I am sure america cannot visualise itself trying to sustain any sort of MAD policy in the heavily factional Gulf; its just too volatile, and they would be too vulnerable. Nor can I see them marching conventional troops into Tehran - they couldn’t even manage Iraq properly, and a lot of them actually 'wanted' a regime change.

.....just as a backdrop....

The stock markets gamble on conflict, as well as most other things; i wonder if anyone recalls this cynical little free market widget:

from way back then said:
NBC News Transcripts

SHOW: NBC Nightly News (6:30 PM ET) - NBC

July 29, 2003 Tuesday

LENGTH: 150 words

HEADLINE: Program for futures trading market on terrorist events canceled by




TOM BROKAW, anchor:

And we have an update tonight on a story that we told you about last night. The

terrorism futures market has no future. The Pentagon was supposed to announce

today that it was creating an online futures trading market on terrorist

attacks. In theory, it would help forecast terrorist events before they happen.

But critics call the idea of allowing traders to profit by correctly predicting

attacks and assassinations grotesque, morally repugnant and incredibly stupid.

The Pentagon said today they heard the critics. The program is now canceled.

Up next, NBC News IN DEPTH tonight. He was chosen to be Saddam Hussein's

personal physician. But you won't believe what happened to him when he said no

to the Iraqi dictator.

Later, a convicted murderer set to die on Friday gets a last-minute reprieve.

And the man who prosecuted him is now trying to save him.

John Pointdexter: (now defcunt...sorry, thats defunct), but a highly edifying account of affairs behind the scenes here...


Though this rather 'cheeky' little site was scrapped, the actuarial, the maths and the real-politik behind it simply re-installed itself behind the abstruse shenanigans of normal day to day derivatives trading.

Since America has just decimated Irans oldest foe Iraq, there doesnt seem a lot left for it to manipulate in the region that would leave Iran 'more' reliant on American patronage, quickly.

America's main option would seem to lie in manipulating Iran's nearest, notably, Pakistan, Turkey and the OPEC states in order to gain more influence over events, via the oil and defence markets and internal invvestment markets. They are already in a bit of a cleft-stick here though, since their bids are increasingly seen as 'hostile' rather than 'friendly by an increasing number of those involved. The question is asked '...who gets shafted up the arse next?'.

From Gulf perspective, its not just about the US: Russia, France, the UK, China, all the countries serious interests in energy markets, as well as those enjoying the flow of development capital derived from it - eg. Pakistan, Turkey, others. If the US is unable to gain consensus (their word for compliance) in these forums then, historically, it only ever attempts to demonstrate control by force of arms - whether wielded by American 'personnel’ or 'others' on their political behalf. As ever, you can be sure it has no plan for what happens afterwards; supposing as it does, that well-tried, classical imperialist strategies will sustain them; america has 'repeatedly' failed to learn from 'even' its own history, let alone the rest of the worlds.

so, perhaps dear get the picture...

we have to imagine seeing images of mushroom clouds and radiation burns on our tv screens, along with the usual pictorial assortment of ballistic carnage we are used to. its too horrible, but there it is.

america, in short....theyd b really stupid 2, but theres nothing to stop them....and they 'r' really stupid...



oh go on, just one then..
great, i was wondering when somebody would reply to this thread! really like some of the points you made, and am inclined to agree with a lot. if i understand you, you are saying that 'we'(read USA) need a presence in the area to maintain some sort of overall picture/influence as to what goes on in the region, in the knowledge that it would be one step too far to physically invade? very true and also like what you said
america, in short....theyd b really stupid 2, but theres nothing to stop them....and they 'r' really stupid...
i really wouldn't put it past them, common sense hasn't really prevailed in the past.....we can only hope...
as far as the UK is concerned, we have recently (well in the past year or so more intensively) been talking to them and trying to forge closer links with their government, along the lines of 'keep your friends close but your enemies even closer'. do you know that many iranians know us as the english fox? :lol:
i really hope it doesn't happen, but something's going on, i'm trying to put the pieces together, i don't for 1 minute believe it's coincidence that we've ended up with some of our heaviest deployments on either side of the country... :eek:


oh go on, just one then..
we're turning into some kind of leukemia!
and how do you treat cancer? chemo....
A couple of comments :-

Iran says if USA has Nuculer (sick) weapons, and is developing them further, so can we. Given the States track record, they have a point.

Also, Israel has already intervened militarily against an Arab country (was it Iran?) that looked to be developing nuclear weapon capability. I can see them doing so again.




Barclay (Dark Angel) said:
A couple of comments :-

Iran says if USA has Nuculer (sick) weapons, and is developing them further, so can we. Given the States track record, they have a point.

Not mentioning the big frickin lazer they want to put in space! I agree you can't be a hypocrite in these matters... A full decommissioning programme/cessation of nuke research from USA would be a good start before they tell people what to do.


oh go on, just one then..
Very true. I've always thought it was hugely hypocritical by the USA to say that certain countries should not be allowed them considering the USA is the only country to ever have used them in combat (as far as I know). Surely they should have been the first to have their nuclear weapons program shut down!


Lunar SeeD
Leading by example is not the Amerikan way.
Which of their generals was it who said "walk softly but carry a big stick"?
The stick is now so so big, it is impossible for them to walk softly...