History repeats itself, remember this?

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...warns-MPs.html

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

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...eration_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...eration_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.