Preparing The Uk Public For War....

[marko]

Yes, I know this is not diretly about house prices....moderator please move to another section if you think it is irrelevant.

The British government has directly linked Iran to the death of 8 British Soldiers (through supplying explosives):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4312516.stm

How can we take this? At face value? Do I believe anything that comes out of the Beeb anymore?

I really am not sure...either it is the truth or it isn't...either way, it conditions the public mind for turning on the pressure on Tehran, and even an eventual attack on Iran - UK/US administrations are ramping up to this I fear.

Iran plans to open a Euro-denominated oil bourse next spring to trade their oil (i.e. anyone buying their oil will be required to use Euros to do so)...this action could be the final straw for the dollar. I am not sure America will allow this to happen.

Thoughts on the importance of this newsflash?

[assetpriceinflation]

Iran plans to open a Euro-denominated oil bourse next spring to trade their oil (i.e. anyone buying their oil will be required to use Euros to do so)...this action could be the final straw for the dollar. I am not sure America will allow this to happen.

You've hit the nail on the head. If this happens the dollar will collapse.

Invasion will be March.

[unamerican]

You've hit the nail on the head. If this happens the dollar will collapse.

Invasion will be March.

I dont think so. I think next year, October or November

they are too late for March I think.

they wont do it in the summer months because of the heat.

[liquid]

Here's another perspective although it does muddy the waters somewhat.

http://indiamonitor.com/news/readNews.jsp?ni=8894

[Frank Mason]

I dont think so. I think next year, October or November

they are too late for March I think.

they wont do it in the summer months because of the heat.

Oh there'll be heat OK, but I don't think the sun will have much to do with it....

Ever read about those Sunburn missiles that Iran has got? These are super-duper Exocet type missiles and very useful in the Persian Gulf. They can be armed with nukes apparently.

I've read somewhere that there will be a 'false flag' attack on the US/West which will setup an Iran invasion.

There's loads of stuff like this on the web, some of it is probably true...

Keep on smilin'

Frank

[BoredTrainBuilder]

I dont think so. I think next year, October or November

they are too late for March I think.

they wont do it in the summer months because of the heat.

You & marko won't be volunteering to do your bit for queen and country then.

[unamerican]

Oh there'll be heat OK, but I don't think the sun will have much to do with it....

Ever read about those Sunburn missiles that Iran has got? These are super-duper Exocet type missiles and very useful in the Persian Gulf. They can be armed with nukes apparently.

I've read somewhere that there will be a 'false flag' attack on the US/West which will setup an Iran invasion.

There's loads of stuff like this on the web, some of it is probably true...

Keep on smilin'

Frank

you mean like the GULF OF TONKIN incident which really kicked off the Vietnam War and was proved never to have happened ?

they had NO EXCUSE to attack IRAQ , no Cassus Belli but they still went ahead.

the excuse for attacking IRAN will be that they are fuelling the insurgency in IRAQ,

There will be some gruesome attack on US/UK soldiers which is blamed on IRAN and then it will be good morning TEHRAN.

[Guest X-QUORK]

I'm starting to wonder if this is a site that naturally attracts conspiracy theory nutters .

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's Razor), is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. It forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy.

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.

For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

[unamerican]

QUORK

Please explain your thinking, Occam says look for the most likely and simplest explanation.

The simplest explanation for an attack on Iraq was to secure access to the oil resources.

The evidence of US actions since the invasion have borne this out.

Why do you think they attacked Iraq which was posing no threat ?

Why do you think they would attack Iran ?

[Guest X-QUORK]

I was referring to the subject of this thread, namely that Iran is most likely behind the recent attacks on British forces in southern Iraq.

[john_d_uk]

Alright I raise the conspiracy thoery thought process one more level;

An 'un-provoked' Iranian attack on allied forces, who then retaliate with an attack on Iran's nuclear plants and facilities with tactical cruise missiles. Yes tactical - ie nuclear tipped.

America/UK etc must realise we are getting bogged down in a stone-age war in Iraq that we can never win. If the west really wants to secure the oil reserves in the region they may have to go in quick and dirty (for the benefit of (western) mankind etc...) Low level tactical nukes would sterilise the ground for a relatively short time and provide a warning that enough is enough (according to the west) In the desert, they would just turn the sand to glass and contain the radiation in a vitrified monolithic structure. (I think....)

Oil prices would rise short-term, but eventually would drop back to reasonable levels.

Vietnam was fought without resulting to ultimate force. The US lost. Iraq the same. I wonfder how Iran wil fare?

Ready to take comments / criticism etc...

[IMD]

I was referring to the subject of this thread, namely that Iran is most likely behind the recent attacks on British forces in southern Iraq.

According to my Uncle, who worked* in the intelligence services, Iran is the main backer of the Iraqi 'insurgency'. The military and politicians know this, they just can't manage another war just yet to do anything about it. Iran have, of course, dug their own grave, as now if Iraq ever stops needing Western forces, it's for the chop.

*Dead now, sadly, but hence why I don't worry about saying this publically now.

[unamerican]

I was referring to the subject of this thread, namely that Iran is most likely behind the recent attacks on British forces in southern Iraq.

I think it is plain old fashioned British Black propaganda. The Brits are the world masters of

this art. New Labour are now adding lots of highly refined socialist techniques to the mix.

It is powerful stuff and not to be taken lightly.

They can whip the nation into a war frenzy from a standing start in under a month.

The only thing they have to be careful of is not stirring things up too much to the extent where there are violent attacks on muslims or arabs or even iranians.

Thats why they introduced the laws preventing incitement to religious hatred because they knew their black propaganda would inflame sensitive minds.

They keep checks on the worst excesses caused by their propaganda unlike nazis or fascists who simply let it get out of hand.

New Labour are very aware the power their propaganda has and are careful that it creates just the right atmosphere in the country,

They want the people frightened and scared off Islamic extremists enough to accept their civil liberties being destroyed and their country being taken to war needlessly.

The do not want to overdo the propaganda to the extent that fasicst style mobs form and attack mosques etc

That would be fascist and Labour are not fascist. More communist.

SO they keep the pot simmering nicely and easily whip the natin up into a state of fear and panic so they accept war with anybody.

Before the Iraq war this was acheived with fake ricin scares and tanks at heathrow etc,

It is a tricky balancing act Labour must perform. They must get the nation excited and scared enough to accept another war but not too excited that they will form mobs and lynch muslims.

Only socialists have the skills and training to carry this out effectively. The right often get the wrong mix- deliberately usually - and this leads to violent and unruly mobs as seen under fascism and naizism.

Labour therefore have laws to deal with people who just get too excited by their propaganda.

[marko]

I was referring to the subject of this thread, namely that Iran is most likely behind the recent attacks on British forces in southern Iraq.

Dear Mr Quork,

So by your logic, when you say 'this site', you actually mean the BBC news site (since this is the site that actually posted the original news). I don't know whether the senior British Official who made these claims is lying or not - maybe Tehran really is as nasty a regime as it is portrayed as in our Media. Maybe they do want to develop a nuclear bomb. Maybe they don't. Maybe they are helping insurgents in Iraq. I don't know. 99% of the information I get about the world is through the media, i.e. mediated...passed through something. If you imagine that the process of information being passed through something prior to reaching you WITHOUT being changed to some degree, then I think you may be wrong.

I am not a conspiracy nutter. But neither am I gullible enough to imagine that the big media sources are not subject to some degree of manipulation in order to shape public sentiment.

On the big issues I don't particularly trust any one media source...to get some balance on a topic (or even to find out about it at all) it is necessary to access multiple media sources - this is why I read the Guardian (Pinko-lefties) and the Telegraph (Reactionary Rightos) so I will hopefully end up somewhere in the middle.

And the independent media sources on the internet are often the best.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Marko,

To make my point a little more clearly, I was referring to some of the posters on this website as being conspiracy theory nutters - not the BBC, who I believe do a pretty good job of reporting the news without too much prejudice from the spin doctors.

I believe Occam's Razor theory applies here in that many events happen as a result of the simple and blindingly obvious rather than convoluted conspiracies organised by governments who generally couldn't find their own ar$es with both hands.

[unamerican]

I believe Occam's Razor theory applies here in that many events happen as a result of the simple and blindingly obvious rather than convoluted conspiracies organised by governments who generally couldn't find their own ar$es with both hands.

Interesting. The Iraq war was not an organised conspiracy by the UK and US

governments to invade a country which was not threatening them ?

It happened by chance ? Is that what you want us to believe ?

It is you that needs to understand Occams razor after you have used it to shave off your intellectual bumfluff.

[MarkG]

An 'un-provoked' Iranian attack on allied forces, who then retaliate with an attack on Iran's nuclear plants and facilities with tactical cruise missiles. Yes tactical - ie nuclear tipped.

Followed by China dumping all its trillion or so dollars. Bye-bye US economy.

China has been setting up big oil contracts with Iran lately: an attack on Iran is effectively an attack on China, and they won't take it kindly. Bush might be stupid enough to do it, but it would be absolutely insane.

[unamerican]

Followed by China dumping all its trillion or so dollars. Bye-bye US economy.

China has been setting up big oil contracts with Iran lately: an attack on Iran is effectively an attack on China, and they won't take it kindly. Bush might be stupid enough to do it, but it would be absolutely insane.

on that we can all agree, and is Blair insane enough to go with him ?

yes, just look at the maniacs eyes.

[grasshopper]

I think motive is important here. Who and what does any particular party have to gain by any given action? I usually look to the economic circumstances that might underlie any given political decision.

Iraq began to accept payment for oil in euros instead of dollars which potential could have had a dramatic affect on the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and hence undermine US economic and political hegemony. Post invasion payment for oil reverted back to the US dollar. Iraq also has 20% of the know oil reserves IIRC.

Iran will shortly open its own oil bourse which will allow trading in other currencies, I presume in addition to the US dollar with all the implications as mentioned above. There are good reasons why the US and its allies might not want this project to succeed. Iran of course also has large oil and gas reserves.

[RichM]

Sorry, have I missed something?

We topple an evil tyrant that has gassed loads of Iraqis and Iranians, this give Iran a good reason to support "insurgents" in blowing British troops? And we're supposed to be worried about the poor Iranians getting invaded?

They didn't invade Iraq for the oil. Had they REALLY wanted the oil they would just have bought it off Saddam. The US Republican administration is is tired of despotic, anti-democratic regimes in the middle east that stand idly by while wahhabists fester in their countries. Hence Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US is powerful but not prepared to risk the bloodshed involved in invading Iran, which at least has a democratically elected government. Sanctions are on the cards.

[ʎqɐqɹǝʞɐɥs]

I tell you what, if the US and the UK invade Iran over the next few years _I_ will eat Krustys f***in' hat for her.

[unamerican]

Sorry, have I missed something?

We topple an evil tyrant that has gassed loads of Iraqis and Iranians, this give Iran a good reason to support "insurgents" in blowing British troops? And we're supposed to be worried about the poor Iranians getting invaded?

and where is your proof of this ? are you going solely on the word of an un-named intelligenceofficer ?

They didn't invade Iraq for the oil. Had they REALLY wanted the oil they would just have bought it off Saddam.

Oh yes they did. Saddam cut off his oil supplies in March 2002 for a month and threatened to do it again. he was going to use the oil as a political weapon which the UK and US would not tolerate.

He also stopped trading in dollars and switched to euros.

Thats why Germany and France were so opposed to the war - it would harm the euro and bolster the dollar.