It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

will blair do it

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Vanguard...you are ON POINT and a breath of fresh air on this topic...WAY ABOVE...It still boggles me why the world complains that we dont help the people of horrible countries...then complain when we do...




posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Blair wont go with an invasion of Iran, not at this time. There is an imminent Election due and Blair is a political animal and political animals consider their own Political survival above all else, yes even above the US. He knows too well that the Labour party in the main would be against a War in Iran and it would split the party in two. The British public wouldn't favour a British Military involvement in Iran at the US's request because i think quite frankly they are getting a bit tired of our Government dancing to Washingtons tune.
I was speaking to some friends at work and the consensus is that Israel needs to step up to the bat on this one, i think the British people are getting a bit tired of spending our lives and treasure when the Israelis are better placed regionally to do the job. After all they are probably the most vocal about Iran's nukes after the US and maybe its about time they got off their arses and fought this War themselves instead of buldozing Palastinan towns and shooting Children and relying on others to do the fighting for them.
Anyway that's my 2 pence.

[edit on 23-1-2005 by Janus]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I dont think at this point in time it would be beneficial to either the US or Uk to attack Iran. If by some chance the talks with the EU and Iran are still stagnant in a half of year 9 months time then the talks about possible precision strikes will be brought up behind closed doors. I imagine most EU nations will be against it until verification that Iran can hit their borders is proved 100%. If that becomes the case, either the EU will puff out their chests and become extremely worried/upset or they will go along with what the US is saying now and admitting that they shouldve never let Iran get this far, realizing their past talks were a joke. If NK is any model to follow, allowing Iran time is not a good thing.
I dont see the arguement here really, we either let a hostile regime that backs terrorists and openly admits it gain nuclear status or we deal with the problem before it becomes a real problem. Personally I think they will be dealt with in the next two years, but a side of me hopes Iran tosses a little present towards the EU to wake them up on to real world problems instead of living in this delusional world of peace they think exists.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
I dont think at this point in time it would be beneficial to either the US or Uk to attack Iran. If by some chance the talks with the EU and Iran are still stagnant in a half of year 9 months time then the talks about possible precision strikes will be brought up behind closed doors. I imagine most EU nations will be against it until verification that Iran can hit their borders is proved 100%. If that becomes the case, either the EU will puff out their chests and become extremely worried/upset or they will go along with what the US is saying now and admitting that they shouldve never let Iran get this far, realizing their past talks were a joke. If NK is any model to follow, allowing Iran time is not a good thing.
I dont see the arguement here really, we either let a hostile regime that backs terrorists and openly admits it gain nuclear status or we deal with the problem before it becomes a real problem. Personally I think they will be dealt with in the next two years, but a side of me hopes Iran tosses a little present towards the EU to wake them up on to real world problems instead of living in this delusional world of peace they think exists.



So a part of you hopes that innocent people get killed so the US can have another War in the middle east? Please tell me you are joking or i misunderstood what you just wrote.

And before anyone accuses me of being liberal please take a look at my previous posts. You will find my views are quite conservative about the war in Iraq and have supported the US regarding the same. But even i can see that a War in Iran at this time is folly.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Its spoken is jest, I dont wish it happens, I just wish much of the EU would wake up to real problems. They seem to think everything is and can be done by peaceful negotiations which is true in some cases but not all. I dont think now would be a good time, but like I said if the EU talks fail, Iran continues to build then I would rather live in a world where Iran is not a nuclear power and if that means war then im for it.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
a hostile regime that backs terrorists



just like the US supplied the taliban to fight the USSR
the Iranians provide money for the people to fight Isreali occupation


Originally posted by Dreamz
openly admits it gain nuclear status or we deal with the problem before it becomes a real problem


yeah you wouldnt be able to shout of your mouths about attacking every 2 sec


Originally posted by Dreamz
the EU to wake them up on to real world problems instead of living in this delusional world of peace they think exists.


atleast here in europe we arnt phycotic that just preaches war like bin ladin and co



[edit on 23-1-2005 by bodrul]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
just like the US supplied the taliban to fight the USSR
the Iranians provide money for the people to fight Isreali occupation
Those were completely different times and to compare that to now is just uneducated propaganda.



yeah you wouldnt be able to shout of your mouths about attacking every 2 sec
I dont understand your remarks.



atleast here in europe we arnt phycotic that just preaches war like bin ladin and co


I again dont understand your remarks.

[edit on 23-1-2005 by bodrul]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
hmmm...tricky question

Blair has two choices.

Help invade Iran and keep Bush happy

or

Don't invade Iran and keep Europe happy......

I personally hate Blairs politics, but i don't think he's stupid enough to help invade Iran, if he did help Bush the Labour party would tear itself in two and the Blair half would not be electable for a very...very...very long time.


Piognant questions being raised here; HOWEVER:

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons with help from Russia and North Korea, Pakistan, also a Muslim state, has already a certain number of nuclear bomb.

In a lengthy speech to mark the so-called "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" celebrated in Iran only, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, said since Israel was an emanation of Western colonialism therefore "in future it will be the interests of colonialism that will determine existence or non-existence of Israel".

Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani made the unprecedented threat as, following new suicide operations inside Israel and against Israeli settlements by Palestinian extremists in PA-controlled zones, responded by Israel’s heaviest bombarding of Palestinian cities, police, communication and radio-television installations, killing and wounding more than 200 people on both sides, resulted in the halting of all contacts between Israel and the PA of Mr. Yaser Arafat.

He said since Israel is the product of Western colonialism, "the continued existence of Israel depends on interests of arrogance and colonialism and as long as the base is helpful for colonialism, it is going to keep it.

Hashemi-Rafsanjani advised Western states not to pin their hopes on Israel's violence because it will be "very dangerous".

"We are not willing to see security in the world is harmed", he said, warning against the "eruption of the Third World War.

"War of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of the World War III", the former Iranian president said, backing firmly suicide operations against Israel.

Quoted by the official news agency IRNA, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani said weakening of Palestinian Jihad is "unlikely", as the Palestinians have come to the conclusion that talks would be effective only "in light of struggle and self-sacrifice- the two key elements that gave way to beginning of the second Intifada".
Iranian analysts and commentators outside Iran immediately reacted to Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s statement, expressing fear that it might trigger an international backlash against Iran itself, giving Israel, the United States and other Western and even Arab nations to further isolate Iran as a source of threat to regional security.
"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.

"The man who considers himself as the most able politician in the Islamic Republic utters such nonsense and empty threats at a very time that the hard line and extremist government of Israel under Mr. Ariel Sharon is looking for justification of its repressive policy against Palestinians", said Mr. Ahmad Salamatian, a veteran political analyst based in Paris.

"At a time that the right wing Israeli government is claiming that the very existence of Israel and the Jews are threatened and uses this pretext as an instrument to advance its policy of repression in Palestine, such statements and ushering such dangerous menaces by one of Iran’s top officials is nothing but bringing water to Israel’s propaganda mill, providing it with more justifications explaining its present maximalist policy", he told the Persian service of Radio France Internationale.

Though Mr. Salamatian is of the opinion that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s words are part of both his own show and the ongoing internal tensions between conservatives and reformers, however, he also agrees with other Iranian analysts that his "untimely" menace could backfire, becoming a justification for threats against Iran, at a time that the United States and its allies are determined to continue the fight against international terrorism.

"One of Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s main characteristics in Iranian politics during the past twenty years is that in order to preserve his own position, he is ready to set fire to all the Caesareas for one handkerchief, including, in the present case, providing Israel with enough pretext to attack Iran", he noted, adding: "for the time being and what is important for Mr. Sharon is that this kind of statements are open invitation for more violence, an encouragement to extremists on either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict".

Observing that despite the fact that Israel is believed to have more than one hundred atomic warheads and the necessary technology to transport them to the very heart of Iran and elsewhere, but no Israeli official nor any newspaper have ever raised the slightest possibility of an atomic threat, "even in defence of their very existence", Mr. Salamatian wondered the reasons behind Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s declaration, which he said should be taken seriously "considering the rank of the man who pronounced it". ENDS RAFSANJANI NUKE THREATS 141201

Now I'm not a geography expert but it seems to me that if I were living ANYWHERE in Europe I would be very concerned about Iran's nuclear proliferation and their declared intentions to destroy Israel.

So here's a question: Assume Iran did destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. Would you then support Blair if he stood along-side the U.S. in a retaliatory attack on Iran?

[edit on 23-1-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
The sad truth is that 90% of my countrymen know what a menace he is. Yet in all the polls it shows that he will win the next election with a comfotable majority! if that happens then in my opinion we should accept all of Blairs idiotic decitions because if we put him there then we all deserve whatever we get and everyone knows it.




posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz
Yet in all the polls it shows that he will win the next election with a comfotable majority!


Polls mean nothing, most are biased and the rest are rigged, wait till the general election for the only poll that counts.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
My personal opinion is if/when he is re elected he will follow the USA as then he can do as he wants for another term without fear of being kicked out by the people. But I am all up for the war and in my eyes Britain should of taken over iraq and its Oil supplies long before the USA got involved. because I don't think we should be fighting WITH the USA as when this is finally sorted out they are going to have the OIL and not the UK like we should. Its also fairly ironic how usually its the colonists that protect the colonies and yet in the UK's situation its the Colonies (USA) protecting the Colonists (UK) lol how ironic



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuanshao101
My personal opinion is if/when he is re elected he will follow the USA as then he can do as he wants for another term without fear of being kicked out by the people. But I am all up for the war and in my eyes Britain should of taken over iraq and its Oil supplies long before the USA got involved. because I don't think we should be fighting WITH the USA as when this is finally sorted out they are going to have the OIL and not the UK like we should. Its also fairly ironic how usually its the colonists that protect the colonies and yet in the UK's situation its the Colonies (USA) protecting the Colonists (UK) lol how ironic


This is one of the funniest posts I have ever read. Are you serious??

I still find it hilarious to listen to the "its the oil" crowd. If it was about the oil, explain to me all the money thats being dumped into alternative enrgy sources including some that will be ready by 2015.....Geez. Its always a conspiracy with people, cant people realize that this was a dictatorial regime that killed its own people, was mounted in scandal, once held WMD's and used them and funded terrorist suicide bombers in Israel, failed to comply with 12 years of UN sanctions and generally threatened stability in the region numerous times?
It was 15-0 anynomous vote for resolution 1441 BTW and that includes France, Germany, Russia and China. They knew what "severe consequences" meant, the only thing that they opposed was another resolution in which they said they would abstain, except for France who "openly" said they would oppose a invasion which completely contradicts their vote in resolution 1441.

[edit on 23-1-2005 by Dreamz]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
This vide were hearing of "Target Iran" is a win win situation for the Pentagon from a strategic stand point. As its stands this suggestion is entirely un-confirmed.

There is a political and stategic "probing" exercise in operation. See how the public and other national governments respond to the suggestion aswell as the huge amount of military intellegnce from Iran's response to a threat.

All of which will effect final probabilty of an attack.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard
This vide were hearing of "Target Iran" is a win win situation for the Pentagon from a strategic stand point. As its stands this suggestion is entirely un-confirmed.

There is a political and stategic "probing" exercise in operation. See how the public and other national governments respond to the suggestion aswell as the huge amount of military intellegnce from Iran's response to a threat.

All of which will effect final probabilty of an attack.



Generally war is a no win situation from both sides, but sometimes you have to look towards the future and the possiblities that can occur from attacking or non-attack procedures. No doubt in my mind that there is alot to consider and my opinion is never rush into any war without having a complete strategy, ala Iraq. Iran may not need a war to bring about change. They do have a huge pro-american culture, as told to me from my friend who I went to school with and is from Tehran. The problem with a uprising in Iran is the fact they are nuclear/close to capable. They could easily in fear of fall, give all their advancements to terrorists which would be no different then letting them rot on their nuclear weapons without a attack. Lots to consider, lots to hope for.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
This is pre war startegy - Iran's current response and international "back room" response will dictate future events.

[edit on 23-1-2005 by Vanguard]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Well, first of all, I think Isreal should start to assist the Allied forces in the region, because no matter what happens, they will also be blamed by the terrorists (Islamics) for whatever happens in the region, whether there is evidence or not to suggest otherwise.

I think the US and Isreal should attack Iran (and possibly Syria at a later date), but only once Iraq and Afganistan has been secured against external threats. It may even be possible to increase British presence in these countries to aid in keeping the country secure, peaceful and providing humanitarian assistance. This should free up US personnel for the future attack on Iran and leave less of a backlash on Blair.

Maybe the aim with Iran should be constant bombardment of military and political assets, rather then full on invasion, as with Iraq. In fact, why use ground troops at all when we have air superiority, naval bombardment and SFs available. As long as the civilian casualities are reasonable, I'm sure International politic opinion won't be damaged too much. I guess it completely depends on the reason for such action against Iran.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoobCommando
Well, first of all, I think Isreal should start to assist the Allied forces in the region


your joking right?
Israel send forces into Iraq and so on

attacks on Israelis will be 100 times more deadly


since they are more use to fighting ill equiped fighters and in most cases droping bombs into crowded area's

how many would they contribute knowing that each one of the men/women they send will be targeted



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Well, I hear a lot of people insisting that any attack on Iran would boost terrorism to all new proportions, especially against the US and Isreal. If the US do attack Iran, I hope Isreal sends a few of its assests our way ie. air support, SFs, etc. I understand that any ground troops they send will now doubt end up as priority targets for any Islamic person - moderate or not!



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I hope we do not go and dont think we will.
Our country is not here to chase "terrorists" around the globe.
We should work on our own country before we tell others how to run thiers.
You call him a dictator, they think the same about yours only diffrence is that you have a bigger gun.

The UK public wont stand for it and frankly I could see a march on london.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
atleast here in europe we arnt phycotic that just preaches war like bin ladin and co


Bodrul, you are phycotic. Britain will join the US if an attack is made. Britain has an obligation to clean up its mess. After ww1 Britain carved up the middle east for its oil after using the middle easterners to win the war. Britain told the Arabs that if they helped win the war they could form there own countries and then Britain stabbed them in the back helping to create the mess that the middle east is today.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join