Iran, should we help them?

Duke · 25 Jun 2009 at 17:44

I think we should keep our noses out (at least for now).

rypt · 25 Jun 2009 at 17:45

Send in the SAS to kidnap Ahmadinejad, their head Cleric dude and whoever else we don't like

Von Smallhausen · 25 Jun 2009 at 17:46

rypt said:
Send in the SAS to kidnap Ahmadinejad, their head Cleric dude and whoever else we don't like

Katie Price and Peter Andre ?

Tefal · 25 Jun 2009 at 17:48

Von Smallhausen said:
Katie Price and Peter Andre ?

think of the poor trooper who would have to sit in the back of the van with them if they kidnapped them

Orcish-Horde · 25 Jun 2009 at 17:59

Doing nothing is probibly the best option for us and Iran, its not our job to save the world from itself. British interests should come first and living up to some Iranian views of us will not help Iran or us.

Gypo · 25 Jun 2009 at 17:59

It's is the belief of some that western governments started all of this, by saying the election was rigged and putting this theory into the minds of opposition supporters they could start an uprising against the current Iran government.

I say sod them they can fight their own battles, we need to conerntrate on getting our own bleeding country upto scratch before we go interfering with others!

Von Smallhausen · 25 Jun 2009 at 18:11

Tefal said:
think of the poor trooper who would have to sit in the back of the van with them if they kidnapped them

Hmm, good point. I don't want any collateral damage.

Kennysevenfold · 25 Jun 2009 at 18:15

apeZ said:
I think this is their own fight.

magmax · 25 Jun 2009 at 18:24

Don't get involved in any more middle east busniess

Participant · 25 Jun 2009 at 18:30

Watch out for the Arabs. Crap at shooting, great at cutting westerners heads off.

I say let them rot, especially if the west's 'help' is anything like the help provided to Iraq.

platinum87 · 25 Jun 2009 at 19:01

i would certainly support any war just for the sake of it

however if you want me to answer what the best thing would be i would say leave it alone, 10 times more people would die in any war compared to having a few death squads running around.

Weebull · 25 Jun 2009 at 19:11

Tefal said:
according to you we should have already invaded

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17905954&highlight=armada

buckeejit · 25 Jun 2009 at 19:28

no, we shouldn't help them.

GreatAuk · 25 Jun 2009 at 19:44

I don't think that we should be involved in any country not directly in confrontation with us (e.g. state-run TV actively condeming the UK). As far as I am concerned we are not the 'world police', we can leave that to team america - just look what a good job they did.

Weebull · 25 Jun 2009 at 19:49

Teki187 said:
But the worrying thing is, could this have been caused by American and British spies????

Oh for the love of...

Teki187 · 25 Jun 2009 at 19:49

Weebull said:
Oh for the love of...

Check the links mate, there is some evidence to support that claim.

Weebull · 25 Jun 2009 at 19:54

Iraq. With a Q. You know, that other country, that isn't Iran.

And how exactly would any attempts by spies to depose Ahmadinejiad make a difference here? The riots and violence are a result of believed fraudulent election results by the Ayatollahs.

Teki187 · 25 Jun 2009 at 19:58

Weebull said:
Iraq. With a Q. You know, that other country, that isn't Iran.

Yes i know the difference, but if they did it in Iraq, what is stopping them doing it in Iran?

And how exactly would any attempts by spies to depose Ahmadinejiad make a difference here?

Destabilising the region is one of the results of a propaganda war, when a region is destabilised, it makes it easier for countries to influence the outcome.

The riots and violence are a result of believed fraudulent election results by the Ayatollahs.

But could we have planted that "fraudulent election results claim" to cause exactly this? If we did the same in Iraq, what is stopping it this time?

Its easier to fight a war of words then sending in 100 of thousands of troops.

Greenlizard0 · 25 Jun 2009 at 19:58

Weebull said:
Iraq. With a Q. You know, that other country, that isn't Iran.

And how exactly would any attempts by spies to depose Ahmadinejiad make a difference here? The riots and violence are a result of believed fraudulent election results by the Ayatollahs.

Well, there's an entire section of e.g. Wiki etc., dedicated to CIA sponsored political events. We'll of course never know what's happening.

I think if a country is going to wage war against another when even at the time, questions were raised about the validity of legitamate reasons given to the public, then when it's clear that these reasons are REALLY happening elsewhere it seems hypocritical to not intervene no?

Weebull · 25 Jun 2009 at 20:05

Teki187 said:
But could we have planted that "fraudulent election results claim" to cause exactly this? If we did the same in Iraq, what is stopping it this time?

Or maybe, just maybe, that claim was triggered by the opposition leaders who disagreed with the results?

Its easier to fight a war of words then sending in 100 of thousands of troops.

Except that there's absolutely no guarantee the opposition parties in Iran are going to be any more Western-friendly than Ahmadinejad.

And if it's so much easier to do, why didn't it work in Iraq? Why did we eventually have to send tons of troops over anyway?

If you're going to turn this into another flight of fancy, I really can't be ****ed to debate this with you. You don't listen to reason, it'll go round in circles like every thread with you does, and I'm only going to get annoyed at you using the repression and bloodshed of innocent men, women and children as part of another of your ludicrous conspiracy theories.