History repeats itself, remember this?

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111307/Iran-trying-build-nuclear-missiles-capable-hitting-London-Cameron-warns-MPs.html

Iran is developing nuclear missiles capable of hitting London, David Cameron warned yesterday.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/07/article-0-01E62A7200000578-467_468x286.jpg


In a chilling echo of the build-up to the war against Iraq, the Prime Minister suggested that the country’s drive to develop the bomb was potentially a direct threat to the UK.

His comments appeared to move Britain a step closer to war against the hardline Islamic regime.

He told MPs the Tehran government was trying to develop ‘intercontinental missiles’.

And he repeatedly stressed that ‘military action’ against Iran was not ‘off the table’.

‘I don’t believe that an Iranian nuclear weapon is just a threat to Israel,’ he said.

‘It is also clearly very dangerous for the region because it would trigger a nuclear arms race but also it’s a danger more broadly, not least because there are signs that the Iranians want to have some sort of intercontinental missile capability. So we have to be clear this is potentially a threat much more widely.’

We were told Saddam Hussein would hit London within 45 minutes of launching a nuclear attack by the unrepentant liar that is Anthony Blair, now pretty much the same by David Cameron who also supported the invasion of Iraq. Could you make this up? pull the other one Dave. Does anyone believe this nonsense anymore? if not, why are these people still in office and positions of power?

Thoughts?

[beth]

the daily mail is known for it's scaremongering, but i don't think we should attack iran without more solid evidence.

[-:Undertaker:-]

the daily mail is known for it's scaremongering, but i don't think we should attack iran without more solid evidence.

I don't know why the Daily Mail is brought into the subject everytime I post as every article/sources has a bias or some sort of opinion including the Guardian newspaper and the 'Independent', but to be fair to the Mail (which shamefully did support the 2003 invasion of Iraq) they did introduce the article with reference to the fiasco that was Iraq 'In a chilling echo of the build-up to the war against Iraq' so I hardly think it's an issue here.

In any case, we know the Mail broadly supports the positions of the Conservative Party so it doesn't need explaining at the start of every thread.

[FiftyCal]

They're making Nuclear weapons, so what? Everybody has nukes! USA isn't the only country allowed to have nukes, but thats not how our government sees things. I'm sure they would be smart enough not to attack London.

[beth]

I don't know why the Daily Mail is brought into the subject everytime I post as every article/sources has a bias or some sort of opinion including the Guardian newspaper and the 'Independent', but to be fair to the Mail (which shamefully did support the 2003 invasion of Iraq) they did introduce the article with reference to the fiasco that was Iraq 'In a chilling echo of the build-up to the war against Iraq' so I hardly think it's an issue here.

In any case, we know the Mail broadly supports the positions of the Conservative Party so it doesn't need explaining at the start of every thread.

chillax, i only mentioned the daily mail because of the wording of the article quoted, it's standard daily mail GET YR UNDER STAIRS, THEY'RE GONNA NUKE US.

[Chippiewill]

We were told Saddam Hussein would hit London within 45 minutes of launching a nuclear attack by the unrepentant liar that is Anthony Blair, now pretty much the same by David Cameron who also supported the invasion of Iraq. Could you make this up? pull the other one Dave. Does anyone believe this nonsense anymore? if not, why are these people still in office and positions of power?
I'm not to sure, we never confirmed that Iraq didn't have nukes, we just never found any. I believe that a big, expensive war to distract us from government debt would be a good idea at this time, it's good for morale.

[Stephen]

lol undertaker is so defensive when people say stuff about the daily mail

*REMOVED*

Edited by Martin (Forum Moderator): Please do not make inappropriate posts.

[dbgtz]

They're making Nuclear weapons, so what? Everybody has nukes! USA isn't the only country allowed to have nukes, but thats not how our government sees things. I'm sure they would be smart enough not to attack London.

Actually only 5 countries are allowed nukes under this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Also why would they not attack London? Surely that would be one of the best places to go for.

[The Don]

Actually only 5 countries are allowed nukes under this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Also why would they not attack London? Surely that would be one of the best places to go for.

Because the repercussions would be huge. Undoubtedly other countries (USA) would in turn destroy Iran as they would be far too worried about the same happening to them. That would be the worst decision Iran could possibly make.

[Chippiewill]

Also why would they not attack London? Surely that would be one of the best places to go for.
Iran is likely to abide by MAD and would not be foolish enough to ever launch a nuke except in self-defence.

[GommeInc]

I'm not to sure, we never confirmed that Iraq didn't have nukes, we just never found any. I believe that a big, expensive war to distract us from government debt would be a good idea at this time, it's good for morale.
Would that not add more debt to the already unmanageable debt? I think the country would be happier not going to war and fixing the mess that's going on at home. Going to war with another nation to boost morale and divert attention from internal, Government problems is what Argentina does - we don't want to copy them :P

[GirlNextDoor15]

Who voted yes?

[dbgtz]

Because the repercussions would be huge. Undoubtedly other countries (USA) would in turn destroy Iran as they would be far too worried about the same happening to them. That would be the worst decision Iran could possibly make.


Iran is likely to abide by MAD and would not be foolish enough to ever launch a nuke except in self-defence.

It was referring to if they were to attack, I'm not saying they will.

[Chippiewill]

It was referring to if they were to attack, I'm not saying they will.
You were asking why they wouldn't and they wouldn't because of MAD.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You were asking why they wouldn't and they wouldn't because of MAD.

Not to mention the fact that Persia hasn't attacked another nation in about 200 years.

[Grig]

the most ****** up part was that these guys such as Sadam were the US' and UK's best friend for a while. It's annoying how they knit-pick who to like and when they don't anymore they launch an attack. They do the same in African countries, allied with Mubarak and Ghadaffi for a while.

[GommeInc]

I like how Europe and the United States are having a moan about China having some sort of "rare earth" which they won't share. If this was happening with another country it would be all out war :P
The UN might as well spend all their money sending delegates to some remote island, with some bricks and mortar to build a wall and pay them handsomely to talk to it for a considerable amount of time.

Mildly off-topic, but some of the principles still apply - the west is jealous and paranoid.

[GirlNextDoor15]

And they won't even dare to do anything if the other country's better than them but would do whatever they can if the other country's weaker than them.

[Ajthedragon]

Until you have all the MI6 evidence it's hard to make a fully dignified judgement. So I said yes for the hell of it. :P

Also how can you slate Cameron for a war which hasn't happened yet?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Until you have all the MI6 evidence it's hard to make a fully dignified judgement. So I said yes for the hell of it. :P

Also how can you slate Cameron for a war which hasn't happened yet?

Because David Cameron and the Conservative Party supported (and still support) both the Iraq invasion and the pointless Afghanistan conflict not to mention declaring war on Libya, along with essentially declaring economic war on Iran over the past 6 months. We now have the same scenario arising with Iran as we did with Iraq concerning claims of 'weapons of mass destruction' coming from Cameron's mouth just as it did from Blair.

I keep saying it, they all piss in the same pot.

[Chippiewill]

Until you have all the MI6 evidence it's hard to make a fully dignified judgement. So I said yes for the hell of it. :P
If MI6 had reasonable evidence they'd release it just to justify themselves.

[xxMATTGxx]

I like how Europe and the United States are having a moan about China having some sort of "rare earth" which they won't share. If this was happening with another country it would be all out war :P
The UN might as well spend all their money sending delegates to some remote island, with some bricks and mortar to build a wall and pay them handsomely to talk to it for a considerable amount of time.

Mildly off-topic, but some of the principles still apply - the west is jealous and paranoid.

Don't forget Japan!

[DPS]

Dont really care if its true or not.. if theres a threat to the UK, i say take them out.