I didn't say anything about Iran not having nuclear capabilities - the intel (or lack thereof) I mentioned referred to the battle-readiness and status of their Basij and Qods forces. Beyond that, we don't have intel on how far along their nuclear weapons technology has come since we last had access to it.

Assassinating Ahmedinejad is an active option for all Western intelligence agencies, but the repercussions would be massive, especially since Iranian assets (spies) are known to operate within the EU.

You're not looking at this from an asymmetrical warfare strategic perspective - that is, the Persian military won't just be fighting with guns - they have an active navy and air force, and their special forces are driven by the dogmatic ideology of religion. Throw in the plausibility of bio/chemical warfare, and you're really walking into a trap.

And let's not kid ourselves. We'd need to send about 500,000 men and women to Iran. We're already complaining about 5000 in Iraq - there's no way we can handle those kinds of numbers, unless we piggyback on the Americans.

[ Parent ]

This should be Iran, sorry.

[ Parent ]

But surely these people are the sort of people to be involved in this type of activity in the first place?

A radical is a radical regardless. They will use any excuse to justify there actions. The case I gave you about one of the 7/7 bombers is a prime example, yet a false myth is perpetrated to make it appear as if WE caused this 'family man and teacher' to murder 50+ of his own citizens.

"The vast majority of muslims do NOT fall into this catagory, but some do - and they seem to be very vocal. So these radicalsed muslims probably would have started out being somewhat indifferent to the terrorists, but now support them in what they see as a war against western imperialism."

Indeed, and surely then the blame lies with the extremistd who are floating the propaganda to prescribe this as some sort of a 'crusade'?

"In short, I believe that Iraq is a factor in terrorist attacks, and the war on Iraq has greatly hindered the War on Terrorism. As such, I believe that any war on Iraq would have similar effects."

I would simply say that these people will be about regardless. I therefore believe that appeasing them would be an almighty mistake.

Yes we should be worried, and yes we should consider the implications of action, but by the same cause we must consider the consequences of inaction.

These people aren't going away, and sooner or later they will attack us again for no good reasons.

In that scenario, I don't think we are left with any choice but a proactive policy to confront the extremists before greater threats than bus bombings materialize.

Its a grim choice, I know, but I just cannot see any other way out of it.

The islamo facists cannot be bought to reason, and acts like the illegal act of war on our troops should only really solidify the position of our government in taking them to task over their illegal activities from their nuclear programme to terror support on a global scale.

[ Parent ]

The middle eastern curse of soviet junk makes them little more than a big group of people tagged as an army.

The Iranians would be destroyed if they tried anything, with nukes if needs be.

But that is an absolute worst cases scenario.

Once again, you are making the case of inaction, no doubt you would have said the same thing when Saddam was developing nukes at the laste 80s.

What is an even greater threat is that the Iranians could aquire a nuclear bomb.

We cannot allow that threat to materialise.

The most disasterous and illogical act in the history of the human race would be to listen to appeasers like you that would allow Iran to gain a nuclear bomb.

[ Parent ]