When are our dear leaders going to grow a pair? Grrrr...

[Northerner]

Hello all,

After reading the BBC websites coverage of the trial in Iran of a British Embassy worker, I got pretty miffed. It seems the days are long gone when a foreign country would have been given a countdown to military action for such an agreagous act of war.

Remember, Iran had also (recently) captured British military officers and were given simply a verbal slap on the wrist

Now I am far from a war mongerer, but surely we need to look after our own citizens and particularly those our government sends out to those areas! And not giving the Iranians a timescale till the bombs drop is just pandering to their already inflated national ego.

Perhaps I am simply not seeing the larger picture here, but I think world leaders should not accept some third world despotic country, when it is clear that they neither respect nor care for human life. The recent elections were clearly a fraud and we stood back and let those who protested die in the (possibly) hundreds whilst we were too busy mourning the loss of Michael Jackson And no world leader, not even Barack Obama told Tehran Anything other than how "concerned" the world is.

But today, all we get from our foreign secretary is a statement telling the world he is "deeply concerned". And this is David "dithering" Miliband speaking, often spoken of as the next Labour leader and possible PM

Tehran must be themselves laughing....

[bornatbirth]

iran uses fear against the rest of the world to get its way,iraq did it for years sadly its a trick what works!

[KeithD]

We are talking about an Iranian though!

[Northerner]

We are talking about an Iranian though!

Sure, but working for the UK. But I posted this as a response to a long list of actions against the west, such as those Naval officers.

But what they are really doing is passing a threat to any Iranians who might think about working for the UK government, work for them and we jail you!

[KeithD]

Iran can do what they like, Western goverments should keep to their own affairs first.

Can't have nuclear powers stations....the West has them
Can't have nuclear bombs....the West has them
....and so on....

When was the last time the UK went to war? 2001
When was the last time the US went to war? 2001
How many wars has the West started in the last 100 years?
How many have Iran started? Ermm...NONE

Now who is the threat?

[joebloggs]

and the USA backed Iraq the aggressor in the Iran - Iraq war
a war that cost more than 1.5 million lifes

[Northerner]

Iran can do what they like, Western goverments should keep to their own affairs first.

Can't have nuclear powers stations....the West has them
Can't have nuclear bombs....the West has them
....and so on....

When was the last time the UK went to war? 2001
When was the last time the US went to war? 2001
How many wars has the West started in the last 100 years?
How many have Iran started? Ermm...NONE

Now who is the threat?

Absolutely, the west has been the cause for the majority of wars over the years. Tony Blair was simply a puppy dog following his master George Bush when he took us into Iraq. There are many reasons for this but I think the main reason is to maintain the status quo, to keep the western powers in a more powerful position concerning world affairs. And I think it can be said that Iraq invaded Iran knowing that Iran had almost zero support amongst the international community.

As for the nuclear issue. I think it would be a mistake we would soon learn of, if Iran possessed nuclear weapons! Apart from the obvious tensions Iran has amongst it's neighbours, the region is just so unstable it is doubtful such weapons could be contained away from a person just wishing to bring on Armageddon! I don't believe that their nuclear ambitions are for energy. The Iranian regime has to import petrol as they cannot refine enough oil to meet their own needs, despite being a huge oil exporter. The capital Tehran has no mass sewage system and is basically a network full of sceptic tanks, something the regime has failed to improve upon. I just think there are far more important things this country should focus on.:xxviolent

and the USA backed Iraq the aggressor in the Iran - Iraq war
a war that cost more than 1.5 million lifes

Yes, they did. And Saddam targeted Iran because he knew America would approve and silently support his efforts.

The regime in Iran is on it's last legs, trying desperately to stay alive and keep the current system of religious theocracy. Change is coming, and I don't mean the Obama brand but real change from within. Their nuclear program is simply another attempt to maintain the status quo. To ensure no outside threats to support dissidents would happen and to promote a fear of the regime amongst all within it's reach. Perhaps a war is far from the best thing we could do to support this change but talking like snubbed children gets us nowhere.

Perhaps we should have added to the frozen assets we froze from Mojtaba Khamenei (the supreme leaders son, assets worth $1.6 billion - clearly funneled from the state and stolen from the Iranian people) and used economic means to stop the regime or even just to slow them down?

[johncar54]

OK, so the good guys in the world should police / control the bad guys.

Just one big problem, who are the good guys and who are the bad ones?

And, if its not obvious to all, remember all governments manipulate the 'truth' to suit themselves. What 'the public' get to hear can be very one-sided. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

For those who think 'we' (whoever that maybe) should impose our good values on others, what should have happened in the Philippines when it appeared the President was stealing the country's money and shipping to Switzerland? Not I hope that a benign country should have invaded the Philippines to 'protect' the people!

(Please note I am only mentioning the Philippines as of course we can all identity with the country).

[KeithD]

Who says we have good values though? Us....that's about it! We only 'help' countries who can do something financially for us (oil in most cases).

Western Capitalism just screwed the planet due to greed. Main major companies gone under due to fraud and mismanagement....look no further than our own MP's for fraud, and then the EU .....which has 'lost' more money than the Philippines, and many other countries added together ever have.

[Alan]

Who says we have good values though? Us....that's about it! We only 'help' countries who can do something financially for us (oil in most cases).

Western Capitalism just screwed the planet due to greed. Main major companies gone under due to fraud and mismanagement....look no further than our own MP's for fraud, and then the EU .....which has 'lost' more money than the Philippines, and many other countries added together ever have.

Capitalist countries will always fight for greed and not common sense. What is the sense in fighting anyway?

Al.

[ukgangster]

who think 'we' (whoever that maybe) should impose our good values on others.

This is why I think the US/UK is probably hated in some parts of the world, too much meddling in other countries affairs, not just now, but also in the past. You can't blame Iran for holding grudges against the US/UK.

From Wikipedia:

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

Seems like our leaders just don't learn from history.

Now the current President of Iran may or may not have been "elected", however its not up to either us or anyone else but the Iranians themselves to decide the fate of their own country.

[KeithD]

It was America's bright idea to take 1000's of square miles in the Middle East and call it Israel and fill it full of Jews.....that is about the same as sticking a new country in the middle of Europe and calling it Afghanstance and putting the Taliban in charge

Both are run by terrorists

[jimeve]

If it weren't for the yanks we would be speaking German now.

[KeithD]

If it weren't for the yanks we would be speaking German now.

...and have cheap beer

[jimeve]

...and have cheap beer

lol, and better cars.

[Tawi2]

And hairy women (I had a german girlfriend before)

[johncar54]

If it weren't for the yanks we would be speaking German now.

Quote: Although the US was leaning towards involvement in WWII, many people still saw it as a "European" conflict. That changed on Sunday, Dec. 7 1941 with the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. A good portion of the US Navy was destroyed.

Until then, around TWO YEARS the USA was selling armaments to UK. Had the Japanned not made the error of bombing Pearl Harbour who knows if they would have ever enter WW2?

And the remarks about the western world stealing a piece of land from the Arabs in 1948 and giving it to the Jews? Is it surprising that the Arabs don't trust us.

[KeithD]

...but much much worse.....we gave France back to the French

[jimeve]

Quote: Although the US was leaning towards involvement in WWII, many people still saw it as a "European" conflict. That changed on Sunday, Dec. 7 1941 with the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. A good portion of the US Navy was destroyed.

Until then, around TWO YEARS the USA was selling armaments to UK. Had the Japanned not made the error of bombing Pearl Harbour who knows if they would have ever enter WW2?

And the remarks about the western world stealing a piece of land from the Arabs in 1948 and giving it to the Jews? Is it surprising that the Arabs don't trust us.

That's what I mean John, (if they would have ever entered WW2) there's no way we would have defeated Germany and Japs without the yanks.

[johncar54]

That's what I mean John, (if they would have ever entered WW2) there's no way we would have defeated Germany and Japs without the yanks.

OK, so they only entered because they had a personal interest.

I guess that tends to show they only act when their self interest is involved! And then together with the rest of the British Commonwealth who had been there from the start, we collectively won!

Maybe had we got involved in the Vietnam war we could have saved the Yanks from their defeat!

[jimeve]

OK, so they only entered because they had a personal interest.

I guess that tends to show they only act when their self interest is involved! And then together with the rest of the British Commonwealth who had been there from the start, we collectively won!

Maybe had we got involved in the Vietnam war we could have saved the Yanks from their defeat!

Exactly John, the yanks think the world revolves round them, but the facts remain the same, no yanks we lose the WW2.

Vietnam, not sure if Britain got involved it would make much difference, perhaps if the rest of Europe got involved.

[Northerner]

It was America's bright idea to take 1000's of square miles in the Middle East and call it Israel and fill it full of Jews.....that is about the same as sticking a new country in the middle of Europe and calling it Afghanstance and putting the Taliban in charge

Both are run by terrorists

And both linked, apparently!

When the Iranian Islamic revolution happened, the USA lost a lot of good intel concerning the Russians, due to their spy bases and listening stations in Iran now becoming obsolete as they were kicked out of the country. So, Russia thought that Afghanistan was next on the map for some US outposts and decided to invade it first to cut off that threat to national security. The US funds Bin Laden, leaves to boil, then leaves it to simmer and...

Instant Jihadis