European news says that UN (USA, Russia, UK, France, Germany et al) are trying to find a formula for further trade sanctions etc against Iran .... have heard that before somewhere!

Al Jazeera, as mouth piece of the (militant) Arab world, reckons war is pretty imminent.

What do "friends" think?

What was the effect on the markets when hostilities atrted in Iraq?

Will US either covertly or even overtly give permission for Israeli to make pre-emptive bombing strikes against Iranian nuclear installations?

If so, within what sort of time-frame?

One nice example.. The US imports more oil from us than it does from Kuwait.

many thanks ..... interesting viewing as you said, though i strongly doubt that it is telling the absolute truth - e.g. there are some countries listed who do not to my knowledge actually produce oil at all - e.g. Singapore and Belgium.

you are of course not right to say US does not import from US Gulf as clearly it does. More to the point, if Iranian oil supplies get shut off to everyone, rather as they did in Iraq due to war damage etc, then oil prices will rise as the rest of the world bid up what is available.

all of which is rather getting away from the original question as to whether or not Iran will be permitted to carry to completion its nuclear programme.

cynic.. How can it be gung ho by US/Israel when Ahmadinejad makes inflammatory speeches day after to audiences that are chanting 'Death to America/Israel'.

As for an earlier statement by someone .. 'everyone knows it'll take them ten years to produce a nuke'. For one thing I get sick of being classed as 'everyone'. For another with 3000 centrifuges up and running they can produce enough enriched uranium to produce one weapon within a year. If that was the intended use.

With Ahmadinejad's target being 50/60,000 centrifuges, work it out.

YES every country is entitled to nuclear power. But who can be blamed for stopping the current Iranian regime from aquiring the dual ability to make weapons.

Russia already promised them the fuel to run power stations they build for them, but that wasn't good enough.

cynic - 16 Apr 2007 17:08 - 29 of 30

you are of course not right to say US does not import from US Gulf as clearly it does.
-----------

If you mean the Gulf of Mexico I didn't say that :o)

Doh! ..... dopey boy - Persian gulf of course!
Mr A makes lots and lots of noise, some but not all designed for domestic consumption ..... but hardly dove-like tones nevertheless.
Israel is allegedly pressing US for permission(!) to take out Iranian nuclear capability ..... hardly dove-like tones and to my mind pretty gung-ho for whatever reason.
USA has been (c)overtly threatening military action against Iran for some time and placing a very significant naval force in the Persian(sic!) Gulf is scarcely designed to show peaceful intent.

in fact you state yourself that US forces are likely to make a pre-emptive strike against Iran.

so, having said that Iran is entitled to nuclear capability, are you also saying that despite this, you too think war or similar in Iran is almost inevitable?

i confess that i read your initial post to imply that it would not happen.

If iran has refused power, as you say navajo, from Russia etc (I think the US also gave them a few reactors of some kind), then its quite clear that the technology will be used for other purposes. E.g trying to send a nuke to israel and then UK + US. The good thing here is though that we/more importantly the US will absolubltely demolish them before they've launched more than one missle.
But the US is building this huge network of missle defence systems around the world and in the uk which protect . . . . the USA. Which could suggest they've planned or are anticipating some more competitive wars in the not to distant future.

also just to note - cynic i think you've been beaten here by navajo etc.

possibly but not sure! ..... just to nail my colours clearly to the mast again ..... i fear that war or similar is inevitable, though suspect the timing is unlikely to be before late 2008 ..... too much manoeuvring to carry out first, political and otherwise.

I think what Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan is showing, is that America and little Britain have overstretched themselves.

America may have been World dominant, but as with previous powers when internal strife develops and the economy begins to fail the largest empires begin to fail.

They have no friends and it isn't smashing a country into submission which counts but it is governing it. They don't have the resources to do this.

I think we are seeing the new emperors developing, but their power although involving military power will concentrate on economic power.

Annihilating Iran's nuclear development will do little to prevent the slow but ongoing demise of Americas political influence and due to the recent policies of the British government make Britain even less important.

Britain was once the World's Policeman and it can never be a popular role, but you are certainly right about the governing bit.

Britain, and the Romans in earlier times, put in place workable and generally acceptable legal and governmental practices. Though some (Zimbabwe!) have chosen to throw out these systems, with some pretty dire effects on their nations, others (India) have kept them pretty much unchanged to general overall benefit.

Unfortunately, America does not have the benefit of a long history, for it is a slow process, to understand how these things come to be. I am sorry to say that her attempts to stamp her authority and mores on various nations, from Vietnam through to Iraq look to have failed almost without exception. Arguably Mexico and one or two of the South American or similar countries have moved forward peacefully following "intervention".

I think the word Plunderer would be more appropriate than policeman.

America for the last 50 years has attempted the same approach by protecting its own narrow self interest and not interests in general.

Gross inequality leads to abuse and resentment and the application of self righteous justice at the expense of others.

An example of this can be seen in that the death tolls of Americans, Britain and its "allies" in Iraq and Afghanistan being known to the last detail, while that of the civilian populations killed during the ongoing conflicts are not recorded for public consumption.

It reminds me of the conflicts in the South of America and the apartheid in South Africa. ie. the oppressed not being valued. It is easy to see how terrorism results and thrives.

i think categorising Victorian Britain as plunderers is a bit harsh given the mores of the time ..... for sure it was not (entirely!) altruistic, but I certainly believe the thinking of the time was that they were also doing the "benighted natives" a considerable service.

Belgium's actions in the Congo were certainly much more brutal and rapacious ..... read (factual) King Leopold's Ghost (or of course, Lucky Jim)

I think it is reasonable to consider the "mores" of the time when judging an action. However, I don't think that changes or excuses the actions which took place. Neither does it change the motivation for those actions.

I am a little bit P. off by politician of today saying "it is time to move on", especially when they don't admit the culpability of their actions or apologise for their ill chosen actions.

Perhaps, it is because I am older and have made more mistakes than they have that I have learnt the value of saying "sorry" and I was wrong.






Not too often though!

it is one thing to apologise for one's own actions, but as one retreats further and further into history, the "obligation", as some would have it, to apologise for one's ancestors' actions becomes less and less ....... I certainly think all this current breast beating about slavery is a load of nonsense, for many many reasons ..... bringing it forward 50 years or so, while we should never forget the Holocaust, i think it ridiculous to keep beating today's German (relative) youth about it ..... and yes i am jewish

Cynic, somebody I agree with at last. I don't hold it against the English that they stole my country a few centuries ago. Only thing I think now that they have played with my ball long enough. Can I have it back and can they all go home? 8-)

I have never understood how one can apologise for somebodies action if you are not in a position of responsibility at the time. That does not mean such actions should be forgotten or not analysed.

I claim my nationality only on Rugby International days or when abroad and somebody is rude enough to suggests I am English.

As you have probably guessed, my heritage is Welsh, but I feel European.

how can a proud Celt claim to be European? .... Even you must admit that the connection with the Bretons is tenuous at best!

that said, surely in today's atmosphere of PC correctness, you should be demanding apologies and reparations from anyone at all by the name of Edward; after all, such a person would be celebrating being named after Edward I

I like their wine, women and the way they play rugby. Good enough reasons.

I almost said love, but in the presence of my wife that is probably going to far.

AT LAST////I NOW KNOW(FredInew) IS WELSH///////THAT EXPLAIN IT ALL /

Cynic - Buy some ArmorGroup shares and you ll win either way.

I wish we could beat the Germans ;-) maybe we stand a chance at cricket? we cant beat anyone else at it