Monday, May 01, 2006
Say NO to War on Iran: costly in more ways than one.
There have been increased worries over the possibility of going to war with Iran. These fears have been caused by the increasing use of depleted uranium which if made strong enough, can be made into nuclear weapons that can potentially wipe out our nation.
The War on Iraq and the continued occupation of Iraq has cost the taxpayer in the region of £100 billion. If our Government went to fight another war within the next two years the war would not only cost more, due to the amount of advanced weapons that Iran already posesses but also because terrorism is likely to play a huge part.
Of course we must protect ourselves and we must always have increased security but i personally feel that if the United States wants to go to war with Iran that it should do it alone.
Although France has already pledged support, (why have they not waited for a resolution from the United Nations?), we cannot continue offering the level of support that we currently do to the United States.
I love the American people but i do condemn the actions of their President.
The War on Iraq and the continued occupation of Iraq has cost the taxpayer in the region of £100 billion. If our Government went to fight another war within the next two years the war would not only cost more, due to the amount of advanced weapons that Iran already posesses but also because terrorism is likely to play a huge part.
Of course we must protect ourselves and we must always have increased security but i personally feel that if the United States wants to go to war with Iran that it should do it alone.
Although France has already pledged support, (why have they not waited for a resolution from the United Nations?), we cannot continue offering the level of support that we currently do to the United States.
I love the American people but i do condemn the actions of their President.
# posted by Daniel Snowdon @ 8:56 am 
Comments:
<< Home
Whilst I don't mean to belittle the sentiment of this article I would like to make a few points regarding factual accuracy.
These fears have been caused by the increasing use of duplated uranium which if made strong enough, can be made into nuclear weapons that can potentially wipe out our nation.
First of all, it's depleted uranium. Second of all, this substance is not used in the manufacture of atomic and nuclear weapons. It is in fact a by-product of the enrichment process. What you meant to write was...
"Owing to Iran's refusal to cease its uranium enrichment program concerns have arisen regarding the end use of the material. Whilst Iran's leaders stress the enriched uranium will be used for peaceful purposes (such as electricity production) the United States, Great Britain and the United Nations have become increasingly worried as to the provenance of that statement, believing that Iran intends to create nuclear weapons. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Iran is entitled to a nuclear program for civilian energy purposes, but is expressly forbidden to use fissile material to create weapons."
If our Government went to fight another war within the next two years the war would not only cost more, due to the amount of advanced weapons that Iran already posesses
The nature of Iran's weapons is not really that crucial. In open warfare they are deemed almost obsolete by modern standards (Mig 29s not withstanding). More prominent however were the sources of their conventional weapons. An article in the Times stated that the Iranian Airforce utilises a number of F4 Phantoms (of the Vietnam conflict era) and F14 Tomcats (still in use with the US Navy today). Where does one suppose they got these planes? Well, the only answer would in fact be... *drum roll* ... the USA. Clearly these are leftovers from the Cold War period where the USSR and US clambered for influence over the oil rich area during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. America should learn its lesson and cease dicking around in areas where it is not welcome. On the other hand, one can surmise they are now merely attempting to clear up an old mess.
Open conventional war with Iran would result in the fall of its current regime and a relatively swift victory for the Allied forces. However, as with Iraq, the following occupation would cause the largest problem. The insurgency in Iraq has resulted in enormous loss of life, both military and civilian, and the insurgents are using little more than simple explosives, kalashnikovs and a bit of ingenuity.
but also because terrorism is likely to play a huge part.
Terrorism is indeed playing a 'huge part'. It's providing the USA's justification for a harder stance on Iran and extension of operations in Iraq. It's no secret that Iran has been supplying the insurgency in Iraq and those who follow the news may recall the Iranian abduction of a British river patrol in Basra sector a couple of years ago. As a Muslim country, an invasion would offer further fuel to the fire of fundamental extremists already in Western countries.
Although France has already pledged support, (why have they not waited for a resolution from the United Nations?), then we cannot continue offering the level of support that we currently do to the United States.
It is not a case of whether we can continue to offer support but whether we should. Here is the moral question that so often has been lost of late. So far, there is no proof in the public domain that Iran has contravened the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only their leaders' crowd-pleasing speeches stating 'Israel should be wiped from the face of the Earth' offer any sort of smoking gun. However, as far as the public is concerned, any evidence against Iran at this stage is purely circumstantial.
My own opinion is that war with Iran would be a mistake. If they don't have nuclear weapons, or aren't attempting to produce them then the US and UK will have the same justification issues that have plagued them following the close of all out hostilities in Iraq. If the UN resolves against Iran then the question remains as to whether it is merely folding to American will, knowing that they'll go to war anyway and damage the reputation of the UN yet further. Should such a resolution pass, as the US hopes it will, then they will have their justification, whether Iran really is building nuclear weapons or not.
For further information…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1234.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-proliferation_Treaty#Iran
Post a Comment
These fears have been caused by the increasing use of duplated uranium which if made strong enough, can be made into nuclear weapons that can potentially wipe out our nation.
First of all, it's depleted uranium. Second of all, this substance is not used in the manufacture of atomic and nuclear weapons. It is in fact a by-product of the enrichment process. What you meant to write was...
"Owing to Iran's refusal to cease its uranium enrichment program concerns have arisen regarding the end use of the material. Whilst Iran's leaders stress the enriched uranium will be used for peaceful purposes (such as electricity production) the United States, Great Britain and the United Nations have become increasingly worried as to the provenance of that statement, believing that Iran intends to create nuclear weapons. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Iran is entitled to a nuclear program for civilian energy purposes, but is expressly forbidden to use fissile material to create weapons."
If our Government went to fight another war within the next two years the war would not only cost more, due to the amount of advanced weapons that Iran already posesses
The nature of Iran's weapons is not really that crucial. In open warfare they are deemed almost obsolete by modern standards (Mig 29s not withstanding). More prominent however were the sources of their conventional weapons. An article in the Times stated that the Iranian Airforce utilises a number of F4 Phantoms (of the Vietnam conflict era) and F14 Tomcats (still in use with the US Navy today). Where does one suppose they got these planes? Well, the only answer would in fact be... *drum roll* ... the USA. Clearly these are leftovers from the Cold War period where the USSR and US clambered for influence over the oil rich area during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. America should learn its lesson and cease dicking around in areas where it is not welcome. On the other hand, one can surmise they are now merely attempting to clear up an old mess.
Open conventional war with Iran would result in the fall of its current regime and a relatively swift victory for the Allied forces. However, as with Iraq, the following occupation would cause the largest problem. The insurgency in Iraq has resulted in enormous loss of life, both military and civilian, and the insurgents are using little more than simple explosives, kalashnikovs and a bit of ingenuity.
but also because terrorism is likely to play a huge part.
Terrorism is indeed playing a 'huge part'. It's providing the USA's justification for a harder stance on Iran and extension of operations in Iraq. It's no secret that Iran has been supplying the insurgency in Iraq and those who follow the news may recall the Iranian abduction of a British river patrol in Basra sector a couple of years ago. As a Muslim country, an invasion would offer further fuel to the fire of fundamental extremists already in Western countries.
Although France has already pledged support, (why have they not waited for a resolution from the United Nations?), then we cannot continue offering the level of support that we currently do to the United States.
It is not a case of whether we can continue to offer support but whether we should. Here is the moral question that so often has been lost of late. So far, there is no proof in the public domain that Iran has contravened the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only their leaders' crowd-pleasing speeches stating 'Israel should be wiped from the face of the Earth' offer any sort of smoking gun. However, as far as the public is concerned, any evidence against Iran at this stage is purely circumstantial.
My own opinion is that war with Iran would be a mistake. If they don't have nuclear weapons, or aren't attempting to produce them then the US and UK will have the same justification issues that have plagued them following the close of all out hostilities in Iraq. If the UN resolves against Iran then the question remains as to whether it is merely folding to American will, knowing that they'll go to war anyway and damage the reputation of the UN yet further. Should such a resolution pass, as the US hopes it will, then they will have their justification, whether Iran really is building nuclear weapons or not.
For further information…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1234.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-proliferation_Treaty#Iran
# posted by 
: Monday, May 08, 2006 5:30:00 pm
: Monday, May 08, 2006 5:30:00 pm << Home
