Britain Plots To Attack Iran

Cennyd wrote
Without a significant change of circumstances, the UK government is very unlikely to get involved in a war in Iran.


The US very nearly managed to foment a popular uprising in Iran in 2009 and they succeeded so well in Libya that most Americans ( and others) are still not aware of what actually went on .
We all know how the US and UK went to war in Iraq on a false dossier and it could be separately argued that the case for entering Afghanistan was built on disinformation and economy of the truth
This recent ILEA report might have been the first attempt to shift US and European perspective . Fortunately it is such an embarrassingly pathetic document that , if anything , joint American and Israeli hawks might be out cold for awhile . And if Netanyahu can be shuffled off stage , we can get back to more subtle ways of solving matters --- bumping of key project workers every so often , allied with Cyber warfare like Stuxnet .
As Corporal Jones said , Don't Panic .

 

He also said, 'they don't like it up 'em'!

 

That was the Sudanese Fuzzy Wuzzies .
I have a horrible feeling that many of the Iranese males are just waiting to come out of the mosques and put on their high heels ..

 

Would that halt the theft of our precious bodily fluids ?

 

I wouldn't surprise me at all. There's a philosophical difference in foreign and domestic policy, which the US and UK agree, which happens to be in line with the desired outcome of Israel's "security" policy.

The US and UK seak to control the oil output of other nations, as they view their economies are based on this. Iraq was all about this and Iran and their insistance of determining which currency they'll trade oil is a problem for the UK and US.

Israel, simply views Iran as a threat and would like to blow them up.

History has taught us that the governments of these countries cannot be trusted to either make the correct decisions in the ME nor accurately inform their people of their intentions.

 

Britain is incapable of attacking Iran in any meaningful way.

 

I would argue that the US also, in terms of having an exit strategy. But the reality is that no one country would go it alone, there'd be some kind of coalition of the "willing" BS, i.e. UK, US, Israel.

 

I will probably be labled extremely right-wing for saying this but I believe NATO-ISAF forces after exchanging power to the ANA in Afganistan should launch a shock and awe tactic against Iran we must not let Iran become a nuclear power as we did to the DPRK sanctions are not enough!

 

Britain has no assets it could bring to the fight. Britain has disarmed itself.

 

And the US has placed itself in a situation where it has to disarm to an extent, as MIC has finally caught up, the arms manufacturers have bled you dry and the piggy bank is empty. Now China has your money and is using it to buy soft power all over the world.

Military conflict is not going to do anything more than further dig you into your financial hole.

 

You do realize I presume that we are not discussing an invasion and occupation of Iran. We are talking about the destruction of Iran. Those are very different things.

 

Yes, and both are equally stupid and very, very dangerous. Still, I guess it's inevitable that America will seek to justify its existence again with yet another war of ideology, sold to the idiotic and gullible masses as bringing 'freedom' and 'democracy' (via bombs, naturally), to the grateful people of Iran.

 

American conservatives are uncomfortable with the use of force by a eunuch like Barack Obama any where on earth except the Mexican border. But the American leftist anti-war movement will remain silent while their Champion kills thousands of Iranians.

The smart play is to allow Iran to attack Americans first. This would happen if Israel attacks Iran. After Iran attacks America the US would have a legitimate basis to attack Iran. But knowing the Master of Disaster it is likely Obama will effectively execute a series of attacks.

 

Nice hot air...oh and I love the way you work you little insult in calling the US president a eunuch...so clever...

I think the US public, and the world, is tired of war.
Tired of devastating the Muslim world with nothing more than accusations as justification. Obama's a smart eunuch...unlike some in here...and knows that Iran has its hands full right now with the possibilities presented by this "new" Iraq that is emerging. Now that control of Iraq has switched tribes, Iran will be seeking to influence Iraq and solidify its position there. It is very possible that Iran and Iraq could find themselves close allies soon. The question is...will this alliance be religious in nature, or political and business based?

The "wild-card" is indeed the Jews. They've already proven many times over that they cannot be trusted. They need to be kept on a very short leash right now.

 

Once begun, no one knows for sure where the conflict would end up. Escalation...Counter-Escalation. All the way to the nuclear thresh hold.

 

Are we? Where was that stated?

 

But American conservatives were luxuriating and revelling in this same war which began under Bush's 'administration'. How quick you are to forget what your champion started.

 

Oh stop trying to re-write history. The Iraq war had bi-partisan support...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." Senator John Edwards (D-NC), October 10, 2002

"While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive." Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), October 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history. His invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life." Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), September 13, 2002

"Make no mistake: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant, and he must give up his weapons of mass destruction. We support the President in the course he has followed so far: working with Congress, working with the United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered inspections. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America's problem alone; he is the world's problem. And we urge President Bush to stay this course for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone." Governor Gary Locke (D-WA), January 28, 2003 Democratic Response to President Bush's "State of the Union" address

 

What's amazing to me is the fact that people like Albert, who naively observe the world through the lens of partisan party politics, still exist.

 

He is hardly unique its the majority of Americans. How do you think the same crooks keep getting elected....

 

It's equally as amazing to me that many American's are unable to grasp that the US is a single-ideological state comprising of two virtually identical political factions both of which vie for power to serve the interests of the rich. The wise correctly identify it as a plutocracy or similar. Only the stupid cling to the idea that the US system is democratic. I think Snakestretcher was alluding to the fact that the US is necessarily bi-partisan regarding matters such as the decision to go to war because unlike you he understands that the US is as I have characterized it as being.

 

I have known both parties are the same for along time. I also know that they play games with peoples minds saying they are different. Support or not supporting the Iraq war is one of those cases.

 

That's what ' democracy ' has become- an alliance of the super rich in order to homogenize dissent and genuine opposition.