Britain breaks with the US over Iran

Well this is good news of sorts, I'm glad to see that Britain wants no part of Bush's war with Iran.

Britain breaks with the US over Iran

www.jang.com.pk...


By Patrick Seale

DUBAI: Britain has told the United States that it will not take part in any armed action against Iran’s nuclear sites, according to diplomatic sources in London. Already facing huge public criticism for his participation in the Iraq war, Prime Minister Tony Blair is seeking to distance himself from America’s belligerent rhetoric towards Iran.

Blair knows he would probably not survive the political storm if Britain joined in an attack on Iran. The concern in Whitehall, however, is that the Bush administration, egged on by Israel and its powerful friends in the United States, risks developing an unstoppable momentum towards war a war in which Britain clearly wants no part.

Jang Group News?! Number one news source in Pakistan? Gimme a break mate.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Even though the news source is a bit dodgy, Blair probably wouldn't take action against Iran right now...

His popularity is sinking right now, due to the dodgy loans thing going on.

Originally posted by Lanton

Jang Group News?! Number one news source in Pakistan? Gimme a break mate.

Can you be more specific? Is the problem with the fact it claims to be the number one news source, or that it is out of Pakistan?

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Lanton

Jang Group News?! Number one news source in Pakistan? Gimme a break mate.

Can you be more specific? Is the problem with the fact it claims to be the number one news source, or that it is out of Pakistan?

....nah it's because the background color for the website is white.

Yes, it's because the author of the article hasn't even quoted unofficial sources; and it's out of Pakistan.

Seems to me Patrick Seale is a fairly experienced and respected British journalist.

www.selvesandothers.org...

www.google.com...

And a source out of Pakistan makes no more a problem than the background being white, now does it?

It's not a source out of Pakistan; it's a source he claims he's got in London....but apparently no-one's willng to even go on the record unofficially.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

A little london-bombing-like terrorism and Blair will be urged by the population to act against Iran... It will not be his will, it will be the will of his people...

Agreed, Lanton.
There comes a time when the source has to be considered.
If the source cited by Sauron was given in an .edu history, political science, international relations class and paper, it would have been refuted as not being a valid source, simply for the reason you gave. Besides, it reeks of disinformation and anti-American propaganda.

What I find simply hilarious is that it was the Brits, along with a few other European nations who were telling the world--including the US--that they would solve this Iranian situation all by their lonesomes, and lo' and behold, the Iranians simply punted the Europeans. As such, the Europeans then turned to the US after their diplomatic-appeasement approach failed. Ahh, harkens back to the days of Chamberlain and his diplomatic-appeasement approach to Hitler....

Personally, I would suggest to US foreign policy makers on this issue of Iran to simply wash their hands of the matter and place the diplomacy ball back into the hands of the Europeans--being they will be the ones under the missile crosshairs of Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles. Let them deal with it in any diplomatic-appeasement fashion they see fit.






seekerof

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Personally, I would suggest to US foreign policy makers on this issue of Iran to simply wash their hands of the matter and place the diplomacy ball back into the hands of the Europeans--being they will be the ones under the missile crosshairs of Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles. Let them deal with it in any diplomatic-appeasement fashion they see fit.

Hmm, wonder where I've heard this before.... But seeker, what about all those terrorists and the nukes they are going to get a hold of in Iran? I mean really, the boats are just lined up waiting to carry them to the American shoreline, right?

I would suppose that we all will have to wait and see if indeed all those boats are lined up, eh?

The Europeans wanted to handle this, I say let them handle it, period.
I have asserted before that the US needs to maintain a backseat on this issue, for a number of reasons. But be assured, a diplomatic-appeasement approach will not change Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons or the technology to build them. Personally, it is time that the Europeans played hardball, being that is exactly what they will have to do. I find it highly unlikely that they will. Hardball to them is handing the matter or issue off to the US, then undercutting the US when the US plays hardball. Ironic, huh? Probably why the UK is now seeking to circumvent the US and propose an economic deal to Iran to end their nuclear program. Question: What makes the UK think that Iran will go for their economic plan when Iran simply punted away the EU economic plan to rid Iran of their nuclear program?





seekerof

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Question: What makes the UK think that Iran will go for their economic plan when Iran simply punted away the EU economic plan to rid Iran of their nuclear program?

Cause this time I heard Blair's offering em 72 virgins and a Shia Pet.

Oh this figures! If the issue is resolved it will be solved by the shedding of american blood....


No! let Iran have the nukes and let the europeans handle it, they do such a fine job anyway

Then I will sit in the US and preach about how those "imperialist" europeans are only acting in the interest of their own nations

I do however realise this scenario isnt likely, just hope too many americans dont get spit on and called baby killers in the process

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Hmm, wonder where I've heard this before.... But seeker, what about all those terrorists and the nukes they are going to get a hold of in Iran? I mean really, the boats are just lined up waiting to carry them to the American shoreline, right?

Wonder where I have heard this before....oh yeah all the empty chemical warheads, all the documents dealing with wmd, all the officers from Iraq and Russia who have defected and told us about wmd, all of this and more are all exagerations and all made by the U.S. government...

I mean c'mon, everyone knows that Saddam was planning on using empty chemical weapons to smoke his weed....right?....

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Working On The Jang Gang

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the Jang Group source. Seems as credible as any other commercial media source I've seen -- which ain't saying much, but it's no India Daily.

The article by Patrick Seale, however, does not specifically name sources, and seems to consist mostly of analysis, not actual news or statements of UK officials.

So I tend to give it the same credibility I give to any article which uses unnamed sources: gossip.

Seale Of Approval

But it's plausible gossip, and Mr. Seale's analyses seem reasonably well-informed. I have a hard time believing the UK wants to get into a shooting war with Iran for a great many reasons.

Then again, I'm pretty sure that, despite the ratcheting rhetoric and insinuations to the contrary, the U.S. doesn't want a shooting war with Iran, either. :shk:

As always, some corroboration would be nice -- from named sources, or better yet, public statements from US/UK officials themselves.

After all, if I were to write and post an article like Mr. Seale's to ATS, my fellow members would have every right and reason to expect me to name my sources.

Why should Mr. Seale's standards be any lower than that of a conspiracy website?

Putting aside Irans nuclear program I think that a few stray bombs need to land on Iran side of the border. Any insurgent havens that are in Iran present a more immediate problem then Irans nuclear program.

At the end of the day this is going to turn out bad either way, Air strikes are just going to cause more resentment towards the west and possible increase in terrorism and posible wars.
on the other side of the coin diplomatic intervention there just going to go ahead and build atomic weapons.

its basicly a no win situation unless you go to extream meassures like offer Russia and China a slice of the oil pie aslong as they dont intervien if the use of miltary actions take place and they put on show of dissagrement.

as for the people bitching about the EU and UK's stance on this, just remember who start'ed the ball rolling on Irans Nuclear program, yup you guessed it the USA.

Team Sports

Originally posted by u4ria
as for the people bitching about the EU and UK's stance on this, just remember who start'ed the ball rolling on Irans Nuclear program, yup you guessed it the USA.

In fairness, we had help from Europe, notably France and Germany, as well as others through Eurodif.

This article provides some background: Nuclear program of Iran

And hey, how were we to know that our dictator friend would be overthrown?

Originally posted by Majic
Team Sports

Originally posted by u4ria
as for the people bitching about the EU and UK's stance on this, just remember who start'ed the ball rolling on Irans Nuclear program, yup you guessed it the USA.

In fairness, we had help from Europe, notably France and Germany, as well as others through Eurodif.

This article provides some background: Nuclear program of Iran

And hey, how were we to know that our dictator friend would be overthrown?

at the end of the day Eurodif and Siemens are Companyies out to make money do they care about the fallout they could cause, But lets not forget it was the American goverment who started the ball rolling your own President infact President Ford.

how was you to know the your dictator friend was to be over thrown, well before they started it they should have looked to the future, come on you dont help another country who havent got nuclear ambitions and help knowing quite well they could gain nuclear weapons from it in the future.

as for the EU being soft on iran, how about this little quote from Wiki

In 1990, Iran began to look outwards towards partners for its nuclear programme; however, due to a radically different political climate and punitive US economic sanctions, few candidates existed.

"Punitive"

im not trying to slang the US but at the end of the day you cant blame the EU and forget everything the USA as done in the past.

Johari Window

Originally posted by u4ria
im not trying to slang the US but at the end of the day you cant blame the EU and forget everything the USA as done in the past.

Well, I could, but that would be ignorant of me.

And that's a sword which cuts both ways, if you catch my drift.