LOL.

North Korea is the country (along with Iran) that really scares the US & UN due to the nuclear capabilities & unbalanced nature of the ruler. That is why they do nothing about those two countries and tolerate their sabre rattling. At the same time Kim Jong Il & the Iranian chap will not do anything seriously to upset the superpowers of USA or China as they are fully aware that they will be wiped off the face of the earth, along with most of the rest of the planet.

Such is the international game of brinksmanship & is paradoxically the reason why nuclear deterrants are necessary...

I'd add Pakistan to the list also

So why all the uproar about Iran's nuclear programme? If deterrents are necessary for us they are much more necessary for Iran.

Our argument for spending billions of taxpayers money on Trident is that 'we don't know what could potentially happen in the future with North Korea or China'. I would think Iran has much more risk of being attacked by Israel or the USA than we do by North Korea or China.

There's nothing worse than religious zealots in charge of a nuclear state who God talks to and tells them to go to war. We had enough of this with Bush and Blair.

No doubt when Ahmedinijad starts taking action against Israel on the grounds of them having weapons of mass destruction which could be a threat to Iran within 45 minutes, he will tell everybody "he didn't do it because it was popular, he did it because it was the right thing to do"

What about attacking their own citizens with chemical weapons? Just turn a blind eye, eh?

because as said before if I want to read about world politics/news I would either go to the appropriate forum, buy news paper or listen to the news, there isnt much media coverage of our great game so I come on here for all things rugby not south V north vietnam, for what its worth I dont want our soldiers being dragged into another conflict putting their lives on the line whilst the rest of the world just Postures and false promises, let some one else sort it out, our lads have more than done their bit

fair enough... lots of topics im not that interested in... i simply dont click into the thread and read them.

Plenty of countries treat their people terribly. China being a good example. We can't solve all the world's problems.

The issue with Iran is that it threatens Israel and upsets Jews. Jews hold an inordinate amount of power in the US.

The uproar over the nuclear issue in Iran is because of the threat it poses to Israel and thus the US' interests in the Middle East. But the US will never attack Iran directly, only really by backing up Israel with weaponry and personnel - not that Israel would necessarily need the support of the US but it would be there nonetheless. The USA has a history of rightly or wrongly getting involved in other peoples' wars when it seems to suit them as "leaders of the free world" and almost universally screwing up that involvement; Korea in the 50's, Vietnam, Afghanistan in 79, Grenada, Colombia, Libya, Lebanon, supporting Saddam in the 80's against Iran, Iraq twice, Afghanistan again, the list goes on and every time the USA will not attack those they see as their true enemy (Russia/China/Iran) due to their fear of unleashing the unspeakable war...

Unlike many of these other states in the region (Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, Egypt), Iran has not attacked any of its neighbours. The reason there is such a furore about Iran getting nuclear weapons isn't because they think Iran will start attacking its neighbours, its because they will then become untouchable like North Korea are, and so it removes the option for the US to attack it when it becomes politically opportune to do so. They have wanted an attack on Iran for a long time because Iran does have a significant portion of oil reserves which are going to become more and more strategically important as oil supplies run out. Up until 1979 US owned companies owned about 50% of the Iranian oil industry during the Shah's era, but Khomeinei put an end to all that.

An attack on Iran in the short term is unlikely because the US has its hands full in Afghanistan and Iraq and doesn't have the spare capacity to launch what would be a far more complicated military operation than those were due to the size and difficult geography of Iran. A war on Iran isn't something which could be done half measures, it would have to be all or nothing, because the day after they first launched air strikes on Iran, the Iranians would respond by proxy through Hezbollah launching rockets (probably including chemical weapons) into heavily populated civilian areas in Israel. Israel would no doubt react rapidly and start bombing Iran itself, and this would put the governments of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia in a difficult position, they wouldn't support Iran but within their countries lots of people would and they would risk being overthrown. If a non-friendly government came to power in Saudi Arabia and turned the oil taps off to the US then the country would grind to a halt, so the US would have to be in a position to rapidly take control of the whole Middle East and assure the stability of all friendly governments.

War on Iran is too difficult at the moment whilst Afghanistan is still going on, hence a swift exit strategy is needed to free up military resources. If they wait too long then there will be added problems as China and Russia are starting to build up business interests in Iran and it becomes a more dicey situation if a US attack on Iran represents a threat to Chinese and Russian interests.

As I said the Americans will not attack Iran for reasons we both said - in addition the "War on Terror" banner is wearing a bit thin around the world and with the disappearance of Presidents Bush (both) & Blair from the world scene some of the West's proponents of aggression are taken from the scene. Obama and Cameron have enough issues on their respective plates than to launch further wars on nations who would respond with terror attacks and guerrilla tactics...

Sally, Canada has the world's 2nd largest oil reserves after Saudi, and ahead of Iraq, Kuwait and Iran.

Can we expect a US naval assault across Lake Michigan and ground assault through North Dakota any time soon?

In closing some stats have the US as running out of known reserves in 8 years time.

The Americans dont need to launch an "Assualt" the Canadians are doing a fine job.....all they have to do to exctract these tars sands containing the oil is to rip up a few forests and turf off some indigenous people.....



[urlhttp://www.co-operativecampaigns.co.uk/toxicfuels/beavercreenation.php[/url




anyway back on topic someone

I've really enjoyed the balanced debate on this thread and I, like many others, like South Korea and it was very naughty of North Korea to blow up that ship. However, North Korea aren't a bad lot, but which is better???????

There's only one way to find out .................................................

Don't forget the Yanks have deployed millitary assets in Cuba, El Salvador, Cambodia, Iran, Panama, Philippines, Liberia, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Côte d'Ivoire, Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Pakistan, to name a few.

Big bullies.

Defender of the Free....

Exactly. They show the exact same imperialism as we did in 1750-1947.

Hardly - the British Empire was formed out of greed & lack of knowledge of local peoples. The USA Empire is formed out of greed & lack of care of local peoples.

A lot of empires countries did very well from the British Empire and still do from it's legacy. - Language, democracy, legal system, railways, trade revenues, commonwealth, protectorates etc. It wasn't all bad.

Violence is not the answer!

Woo Pacifism!

lets hope one dont knock the other out the world cup that could just push them to far lol

Don't joke about it - I remember Honduras & El Salvador going to war over the result of a World Cup Qualifier...

NK never torpedoed no ship, proberley a black ops done by the CIA or Mossad. Its an old trick, americans have done it many times and so have the British, especially in ireland in the 70s.

Anyway, this Kim jong part2 dont seem too bad chap. any bloke who can hit 5 holes-in 1 on his 1st gme of golf, watches pornography, listens to Elvis and wears p[latform shoes would get my vote.