British Foreign Secretary: "War On Iran Inevitable !"

[Cyrus]

OK, he didn't say exactly "inevitable" /images/graemlins/cool.gif -- but he will, at some point in the near future, if the past is of any guidance.


British Foreign Secretary : "War On Iran Inconceivable" (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1343207,00.html)

<font color="white"> . </font>

[nicky g]

I don't get it. Did he say something similar about Iraq before that war?

[daveymck]

We are between 3-6 months away from an election here, if the US was to move on Iran in that time there is no way the UK would be any part of it ot I suspect even support it.

The war in Iraq (or the reasons for going) are going to dominate the election as it is, so I cant see the government here talking up any future military action eleswhere.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

There will be no diplomatic solution to this matter. Iran will press ahead with enriching uranium for nuclear armament purposes no matter what takes place on the diplomatic front. Israel, perhaps with direct U.S. assistance, will demolish Iran's enrichment facilities.

All the above vitually inevitable events don't have to mean a larger war, however.

[lorinda]

Judging by the cover of today's Daily Mirror (The tabloid of choice of the masses these days), I don't think anyone who helps Bush will win anything here.

Today's entire front page... top right (http://www.mirror.co.uk)

Lori

[nicky g]

"Iran will press ahead with enriching uranium for nuclear armament purposes no matter what takes place on the diplomatic front"

That it is enriching uranium for military purposes is pretty far from proven.

[nicky g]

Wow.

[MMMMMM]

It may not be "proven" but it is sure as hell KNOWN.

[nicky g]

Yeah, like Iraqi WMDs weren't proven but "KNOWN" to exist (right down to their exact location!).

[lorinda]

It's worth seeing in close up so the letters at the bottom can be read.

Front Page (http://www.mirror.co.uk/frontpages/)

I stress that this is a huge tabloid, rather than a serious paper but the front page of the independent was almost as scathing (Wish I could find an image of it) with 'four more years' as the only words surrounded by four images of war and tortured prisoners etc.

The UK press is not amused.

Lori

[GWB]

Who cares what a liberal newspaper prints? We will continue to deal with Iran responsibly, and the liberals throughout the world can panic themselves all they want.

[lorinda]

Who cares what a liberal newspaper prints?

The deep irony here is that the liberal newspaper might well get the liberal government removed, although to be fair the conservative opposition is about as weak as it has ever been.

Lori

[daveymck]

The Mirror has been anti war/US/Isreal etc for a few years now, I think its lining itself to to be a tory paper along with the mail on this election.

I think the Sun has a lot more positive spin and has a positive edatorial not on the web as well.

The Suns view (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004511727,00.html)

Blair is positioning as the voice of reason who will work with Bush, pretty much the role he played in the build up to Iraq I think without Blairs council the US would have been in Iraq long before the UN sanctioned it.

[MMMMMM]

This is more certain; the motives and mindset of the mullahs is crystal clear.

Rafsanjani said: once Iran has nukes it will be able to solve the problem of Israel once and for all.

The mullahs have stated it is their right to possess nuclear weapons.

The Iranian Parliament shouts "Death To America!" as they mandate uranium enrichment.

And many other examples from the past.

Come on Nicky you are really much smarter than this. You may not be able to PROVE what the mullahs are thinking but you sure as hell can KNOW what they are thinking, based on their long-term rhetoric and well-evidenced mindset.

Yet you are arguing that they might really want to be enriching uranium solely for peaceful purposes.

Yeah right.

Has anyone offered to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge since your move to New York?

[lorinda]

Blair is positioning as the voice of reason who will work with Bush, pretty much the role he played in the build up to Iraq I think without Blairs council the US would have been in Iraq long before the UN sanctioned it.

I think Blair very nearly did an excellent job of acting as the conscience of GWB, but the splits in his party appear to be coming back.

He has managed to keep the 'loony left' (I'm certainl you'll love that phrase /images/graemlins/blush.gif) under control over the past years, but they do appear to be voicing their opinions more and more loudly again.

If there was a credible opposition party here, I'm pretty sure we would have a change of government come Feb/May, but as it is I think we'll just get ridiculously low turnouts.

Lori

[daveymck]

I still think its a bargaining position, they know the US would take them out if they reallty properly did develop these weapons.

If they were not doing anything when the US pressure comes they dont have anything to back down from (the problem Saddam had in the end) if they have a weapons program they can then bow down to the pressure and politically it would be hard for the US to take any further action.

The situation is fluid anyway once Arafat passes on there could be changes in the Middle East anyway one way or another.

[lorinda]

Thanks for the counter-view Davey.

I had a walk around Tescos this morning and just looked at the pages in general, there were some factual and some anti and the Mirror's stuck out.

I didn't notice the positive spin, but clearly it's there in The Sun, so at least the major tabloids are balancing each other out.

Lori

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think its a bargaining position, they know the US would take them out if they reallty properly did develop these weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...what are they bargaining for, then?

[daveymck]

Why? do you think I am a loony left labour party supporter?

Under Howard the tories have no chance, the liberals are not strong enough to really challange so there will be no change, maybe a smaller majority but I dont see any big change.

[lorinda]

Why? do you think I am a loony left labour party supporter?

Actually no, but I have you on the left, and the left tend to not like the extreme left being mentioned when possible.

FWIW my policital views really struggle to be put left/right as I have some extreme views that cross party lines on both sides.

Lori

[nicky g]

How can it be more certain? We were told that Saddam and WMDs was absolutely certain - we knew where they were, for goodness sake.

You have to distinguish between rhetoric and sincere threats. The North Koreans make threats to wipe the US off the map but even the Bush administration has a good idea that this is largely rhetoric and they want to use nukes as a bargaining chip. The mullahs can say what they want but even they (especially they, as they are largely corrupt these days and very much attached to this world) are not going to risk their destruction, (along with that of the Palestinians and Islamic holy sites such as the Dome of The Rock), by launching nuclear attacks on Israel or the US. The IAEA is distinctly ambivalent about whether they are attempting to build nukes. I don't know if they are or not and neither do you. Certainly the Iraq debacle gives them very good reasons to want to.

[daveymck]

No I am more liberal and have actually never voted labour. I dont however like the liberals tax policy so dont really like any party. I am working at a university at the moment and the freshers have just come in there is so much recruiting going on for politics its unbelievable. The Socialist worker being handed out each day with anti war slogans and talks going on, I am hard pressed not to tell them to "F*** Off".

I dont agree with everything about the war but when our men our out there they deserve our support. I travel a lot and quite often there are lads on the train coming back from Iraq and hearing them chatting can be quite a revelation, there is a lot more going on than we hear about.

As for polotics I was brought up in a ex mining labour heartland in a working class family with working class ideals of family, hard work and decency, looking out for the family etc. I saw first hand the destruction of the miners strike and the reccession of the late 80's/90's which had an impact on my family directly as my dad went from a decent job to on the dole for a couple of years, meaning having to sell our house and move back to council accommodation. They bought into the tory vision of home ownership and then had it destroyed.

I did think after living under a tory government for so long Labour coming in would mean a clean slate and investment and revitalization of a lot of my local areas dissapointingly it hasnt, hence my comments of blair the other day.

As for me as an IT consultant I have in effect moved from working class into the middle class bracket and so probably have different views on things (like tax) and education etc. But genrally I am pretty easy going both morally and politically.

I personally beleive the party political system at all levels in our country is extremely flawed and would favour abolishion (sic) of party politics and have independants running, people with life skills, experience in education/business/medicine etc rather than the know all, experienced career politicians we currently have.

I do also like to push the discussion along sometimes playing devils advocate or making my view more extreme as it can help the debate, one of my skills in life is being able to put forward alternative views even if I dont agree with them, which helps if people are in dispute if you can help someone understand the others view.

I do find some of the views and outlooks on here pretty scary.

[MMMMMM]

We weren't debating whether their threats might be carried out, only whether they want to enrich uranium for purely non-military purposes.

[nicky g]

Fair enough. That last post of mine was a bit jumbled. Anyway, the answer is we don't know. There is a strong basis for suspicion that they are, simply because most countries want nuclear weapons and Iran probably more thna most, whether you believe as a deterrent against US invasion or for blowing up the world. On the other hand, it irritates me when people talk as if the fact that they have an enrichement programme is literally interchangeable with the idea that they are building a bomb.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think its a bargaining position, they know the US would take them out if they reallty properly did develop these weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...what are they bargaining for, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not getting invaded in the main and maybe some economic benefits out of it as well.

In the end Saddam had got rid of his weapons and in the main his weapons programmes, however noone beleived him he didnt have a position to back down from, had he kept his programmes he may have been able to politically get out of being invaded (with UN backing anyway) by stopping the programmes publically. Great politician Saddam was that mistake is what cost him.

Iran is just having somthing there so that when America come knocking they can say ok we are stopping this now and politically it reduces the reasons America could attack them legitimally.

They may hate the US and may publically state it within their country buth they know if America wants to invade they would wipe the floor with them. What they say to their own people may not be the same as they say to the diplomats.

[Gamblor]

The mullahs can say what they want but even they (especially they, as they are largely corrupt these days and very much attached to this world) are not going to risk their destruction, (along with that of the Palestinians and Islamic holy sites such as the Dome of The Rock), by launching nuclear attacks on Israel or the US.

I think you're largely underestimating them.

I am no mullah, so I don't know what they're thinking. But it is one of two situations:

1) They believe their own religious rulings and are willing to die and sacrifice whatever it takes to eliminate Israel from Arab land and kick America out of Arab land. Inshallah.

2) They motivate the lowly peasants on the street to carry out their dirty work and carry out terrorist attacks on Jewish, Israeli, and American targets. After all, a mullah is a mullah, but for a peasant, how else can they be a life success and support mullahs' political goals other than killing hundreds of enemy civilians in the name of Islam?

I'm far more inclined to think it's #2. But don't rule out #1.

[nicky g]

"1) They believe their own religious rulings and are willing to die and sacrifice whatever it takes to eliminate Israel from Arab land and kick America out of Arab land. Inshallah."

Given that they're not Arabs, I don;t think this is what motivates them.

I think it's pretty well accepted that the Mullahs are evolving into self-interested, corrupt authoritarians. There may be some crazy idealists left but by and large they are in it for themselves.

[MMMMMM]

OK...but in THEIR case I think that it is interchangeable with their preparing to build a bomb.

[Gamblor]

My mistake. Persians.

But Islamists nonetheless.

Replace Arab land with Islamic land.

[nicky g]

I know you do. I don't. But regardless, there are people who talk is if not that one follows from the other (ie Iran is enriching uranium in order to build a bomb) but that the two are precisely the same thing (ie that Iran is enriching a uranium conclusively proves it is making a bomb).

[lorinda]

there is a lot more going on than we hear about.

Thanks for the resume Dave, very interesting stuff.

With regards to the above quote, I recently found the following site.

Iraq casualties and news (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

Whilst the casualties part is probably rather a political statement more than anything, the news articles on the right hand side are a decent reference to a lot of the stuff that gets buried in the back pages.

Lori

[nicky g]

OK. Either way it rules them nuking Israel out IMO.

a. They are corrupt worldly politicians. They have no interest in getting themselves and their country destroyed in a nuclear war out of sheer ideology.
b. They are crazy Muslim zealots determined to save Palestine for Muslims. Thye have no interest in nuking it, killing lots of Muslims, destroying Islamic holy sites and making it uninhabitable for years.

The second one doesn;t rule out an attack on the US of course. But having never attacked the US on home soil I don;t see them starting now. Plus I think the former of the two best characterises them (corrupt authoritarians with their own survival/interests at heart).

[daveymck]

I was thinking morte about the conditions for the soldiers and also the attitude of the Iraqis to them.

From eavesdropping (well two lads from different regiments were sat next to me comparing notes) it sounds like the insurgency is a lot more than just Saddam Loyalists and forign fighters, there is a lot of anti US and UK feeling over there and they talked a lot about stone throwing and that wires get tied across the road at head height to try and take the heads off the tank drivers etc. There does seem an organised resistance there but there is a general ill feeling get out of our country type feeling as well that the soldiers cop the brunt of.

They were quite impressed by the new tank gun that must be coming in shortly though.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the resume Dave, very interesting stuff.



[/ QUOTE ]

Did I get the job, or will you get back to me /images/graemlins/frown.gif