Anyone support a war to disarm Iran

[Dom Tuk]

It is predictable that the USA will seek the UKs help in phase 3 of its war against the axis of evil. Our govt will tell us that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and that they will use it against us via the terrorists. How many here will support such a war.

[foxy.fagin]

I doubt the US will be seeking the support of the UK, the US will be expecting the support of the UK.

[qapmoc]

Dom, This AXIS of EVIL stuff is a load of misleading rubbish, I see that N-Korea is on that list but the USA will never attack N-Korea and why, well obviously because they don't got  ** OIL  **  .  The only terrorist states that matter to Bush and Co are the ones sitting on or around oil fields. You should know that the USA oil fields as a whole peak production year was 1978 or so and declining ever since and their imports have been climbing ever since and now stand at 83% or so of theie total oil use.  

[andy hughes]

I find the notion of America in general, and george Bush in particular, establsihing itself as the armed enforcer of its own individual concept of 'freedom' to be frightening in the extreme.

Calling the cause of a war 'freedom from terrorism' does not detract from the simple fact that war declared is war declared, no matter what fancy label you give it - you can call an ass a horse, but it doesn't shorten its ears!

Surely history teaches us that thes exercises in invasion cause far more harm than they create good - Viet Nam is surely recent enough in living memory to serve as an example of what can happen when America marches into countries that don't really welcome its intervention - and it proceedes to spend millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives before withdrawing, and then re-writing history to suit.

Mr. Bush needs to be careful - someone else's notion of 'freedom' might decide that he is an evil terrorist, and needs to be invaded, and removed from power - freedom / terrorism is simply a matter of perspective.

[jake-the-peg]

After Iraq I doubt the house of commons would support military action against Iran with anything short of overt hostilities such as an invasion of Iraq. Some report saying Iran's developing nuclear weapons really won't do it this time.

If military forces were to be used without Parliaments consent after consent was sort for the Iraqi action I'd guess be damned good chance that they'd loose a vote of no confidence.

So given that turkeys don't vote for Christmas and given that the Iranians aren't stupid, and seem to be playing quite a clever (if a bit dangerous) game I'd say military action against Iraq is pretty unlikely.  

[surfer mike]

I will not support british involvement in a war with iran,

But lets try, hard as it might be for some on here to avoid turning this into the usual blair /bush hate thread,  and look at the issue of any potential war with iran objectively and without set in stone political theorising,

Seeing the political trouble iraq has caused both blair and bush and with the actions of the merchants of death al-zakawi and his zealots continues to, lets be honest here they are hardly going to encourage even more trouble by invading iran, the iraq war is costing not just politically but also financially..a full frontal invasion is very unlikely to happen despite the questioners wonderful assumption of fact in his original question...

[bernardo]

No.  The situation in Iran is completely different from the situation in Iraq under Saddam Hussein - Iran has its own form of democracy, by which its people can bring about reform if they want it, and the government of Iran has no record of waging aggressive war against neighbours.

P.S. (qapmoc) Another reason for the USA not invading / attacking / liberating the DPRK (apart from the lack of oil) is that the DPRK has nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

[Zen]

It's not about disarming Iran,it's about Oil.
Iran wants to trade it's Oil in Euros not Dollars which will screw up the US economy and make the dollars worth even less.
Read more here,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0830/p03s01-wome.html

[VINNY100_2]

Dom...hope..you..dont..mind...me..asking..but..what religeon...are...you.(:)

[january_bug]

Dom Tuk's religion is Thatcherism! :-p

Given the disaster that Iraq has turned out to be (although I don't think we should pull out yet), I would be very cautious about supporting such a war.  However, if I read a decent case in support of such an event, presented by NATO or the UN, then I would give those arguements decent consideration, as I would any reasonably presented opposition.  (By that I mean, as surfer mike suggested, that I am tired of so many political issues being dumbed down into anti-Blair/anti-Bush by people who are intelligent enough to make their case better than that, but have become so self-brainwashed that they'd lost that ability). 

Apart from the obvious lack of question mark, your question lacks a sense of timing Dom Tuk.  I know you're an ABer who likes to know the facts and doesn't like to jump to conclusions.  Perhaps you will afford us the luxury of waiting for this issue to develop a little further before forming our opinions?

[foxy.fagin]

What does it matter Dom Tuk's religion? Thatcherism isn't a religion, jan-bug - thank heavens unless you mean idol worship, but I haven't seen any Thatcher dolls on sale in the shops for a number of years.

I agree with andy hughes, a weighed out answer as usual and what he says about war is darned right. The way all of you bandy the notion of war about - will I support it, do I think it's reasonable? Good heavens, people, we're talking life and lives here. Is oil worth it for you? OK, it is for Bush but about him, I'll say no more - it's all been said!

bernardo makes an extrememly good point re North Korea, no war proclaimed by Bush on them (lots of dislike yes!) no oil AND they have their deterrent all ready - and everybody knows!!!

[january_bug]

I know it's not a religion foxy you wally! :-p

The reason why there are no more Thatcher Barbie Dolls available is because they were all bought up by certain regular ABers! :-p

Sorry to digress Dom Tuk!

[WaldoMcFroog]

The Thatch dolls may have been bought up by certain ABers, but unlike WM, mine has pins in it... ;-)

[january_bug]

I'm getting images of Smithers from the Simpsons collecting all his barbies.  I reckon this theory could be correct.  I'm too young to have an opinion on Thatcher either way really, but I've read a lot of stuff about what happened in the 1980s, and it's not all good really!  Anyway - a debate for another day!

[surfer mike]

And of course we all know that if thatcher was the prime minister we would never have followed america to war against iraq!!!! yeah right.

I mean it wasn't as if she was ever accused of being americas a*******  when she was in power...and seeing she was one of the many at the time who believed [in her case certain of] he still had weapons of mass destruction of course she wouldn't have believed the intelligence services and liberated iraq from a ruthless tyrant. 

[foxy.fagin]

I know you know (re T-ism religion), jan_bug, and you call me a wally. I'm a fagin, sorry! I just wanted to see if you were paying attention; I know it would be odd if you weren't.
But re your last post, any good I think Thatcher did was B4 she became PM; once PM I know she chased me out of GB, maybe that was good...

And let me say, I like Dom Tuk's threads - he posts a wild statement and just sits back waiting for all the answers to float back. True, DT?!
Maybe he's taking notes and when the list is long enough, he'll get in touch with The A.T. Brigade!!!!!

[nedflanders]

Yes.  I say bomb their Nuclear power station immediately!  We could just say it was bad intelligence.

P.s. Dom, a few questions, do you think the invasion of afghanistan was warranted, do you think that the iranians and syrians are not assisting terrorists?

P.p.s. Ab Ed can we please have a new category for bush/blair whacking?

[WaldoMcFroog]

And another for blind patriotism?

[AB Editor]

Ha! Thanks for the suggestions guys, but I don't think permanent categories devoted to Bush/Blair whacking and nation cheering would do us any good.

Appreciate the debate as always.

Personally, I don't think America can afford another war, and in this I mean "money". Already the country is terribly overstretched and waging a new war would be disastrous. People's standard of living is flagging and a new war only says to me that the Govt. under Bush is desperate.

[Oneeyedvic]

Haha - ABed - thought you were impartial. Nice to see you have an opinion and like to share it. ;-)

[AB Editor]

Its contagious oneeyedvic!