Britain rejects US request to use UK bases in nuclear standoff with Iran

Britain rejects US request to use UK bases in nuclear standoff with Iran

www.guardian.co.uk

Britain has rebuffed US pleas to use military bases in the UK to support the build-up of forces in the Gulf, citing secret legal advice which states that any pre-emptive strike on Iran could be in breach of international law.

The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories.

The US approaches are part of contingency planning over the nuclear standoff with Tehran, but British ministers

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.ft.com

Well, nothing really to comment here, self explanitary. I am happy that the UK has finaly taken a stand and said no to America, for what sems to be the first time in a while.

Are America and Britain drifting apart? Not long ago, Britain refussed to extradite Garry McKinnin, which angered the USA

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. www.ft.com...

US hits out over McKinnon ruling

By Brooke Masters and Helen Warrell in London

A top US official has hit out at the UK for waiting until the last minute to block the extradition of Gary McKinnon, the computer hacker charged with breaking into systems at Nasa and the Pentagon.

Theresa May, home secretary, intervened last week, more than 10 years after Mr McKinnon was first arrested, telling MPs that extraditing the 46-year-old computer hacker to the US would be an infringement of his human rights because he would be in danger of committing suicide.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Oh I can't help but laugh my butt off. it's all coming home to roost. As if 10 Downing Street gave two craps about International Law in 1990 or Serbia and Kosovo later, or 2002 in Afghan...or 2003 in Iraq. As if it mattered at any of THOSE times...

Gee... I guess things like sending the Bust of Churchill back as the FIRST order of business........patting the Queen on the back like a commoner.......giving them Obama speeches at Buckingham Palace for gifts as if those were treasure...

^^^^ All that crap adds up. Oh.. yeah..and the fact that between Manning and the more recent leaks like a pasta strainer, we can't keep a secret to save lives with. No kidding eh? The British don't TRUST us? Imagine that.

I can't possibly imagine why.

reply to post by Trolloks


Lol, they didn't seem to care about international law when the U.S. went after Iraq. I don't think it's any high-minded moral reason. The simple fact is getting involved in Iran would start a bigger mess and they want no part of that.

Good news indeed! I hope the Brits stand strong on this one. Perhaps they learned something from their mistakes in supporting the US military aggression in Iraq.

i believe it has more to do with retaliation potential than anything else, i mean when a rocket lands on your turf you usually fire one back in the direction it came from correct?

Obviously, Iraq and several other cases was a deffinate breach of international law, and I am not sticking up for Britain for those, I truely believe that Tory Blair should be tried and prosecuted.

However, I do wonder if it has anything to do with this;

Britain will settle its World War II debts to the US and Canada when it pays two final instalments before the close of 2006, the Treasury has said. The payments of $83.25m (£42.5m) to the US and US$22.7m (£11.6m) to Canada are the last of 50 instalments since 1950. The amount paid back is nearly double that loaned in 1945 and 1946. "This week we finally honour in full our commitments to the US and Canada for the support they gave us 60 years ago," said Treasury Minister Ed Balls.

BBC News

That's right you westerners....go p**s on someone else's bonfires, we ain't interested!

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Trolloks

 

Lol, they didn't seem to care about international law when the U.S. went after Iraq. I don't think it's any high-minded moral reason. The simple fact is getting involved in Iran would start a bigger mess and they want no part of that.

The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts never really had the potential to break out into World War 3. Iran is a completely different matter more like Israel and Palestine or North and South Korea.

Interestingly, on the subject of Diego Garcia, the lease is up for renewal by the end of 2014 and actually expires in 2016...

I am now wandering if we won't renew the lease. It's not as if the Yanks pay anything for it anyway.

Am I the only one that sees this simply as another round fired in the PR campaign against Iran?

Since when have high-level discussions about strategic placement of military forces been blurted out by mainstream newspapers? It's not. That's classified information most likely.

What's the Orwellian term? "Newsspeak"? (can please correct me if that's not the correct context)

reply to post by Just Chris


I like how you... umm.. "easterners?" (Europe is the west too...) like to generalize about Americans..

Guess what brits live here too!... Actually name a country.. we got em.

reply to post by Trolloks

nuclear stand off with Iran !!! but Iran is not a nuclear bomb power. and it is not near UK. I think that is a stand off with Russia. they always say that they are doing it for Iran but soon it turns out that they are doing it for Russia !!!

reply to post by Trolloks


Wake up
this only a front to make Iran think it not going to happen.
Do not look at the hand that waving.
Pay attention to the other under hand false flag to come.

In no way do I doubt the veracity of the OP source; however, I must ask....why would the US need to base nuclear weapons in the UK when the US could easily base them in Israel; a much closer and relevant geopolitical position?

Originally posted by Trillium
reply to post by Trolloks

 

Wake up
this only a front to make Iran think it not going to happen.
Do not look at the hand that waving.
Pay attention to the other under hand false flag to come.

Iran isn't some backward cave dwelling nation of morons. They have access to Satellite imagery and can SEE if American equipment is accumulating on British owned runways and depots. It's kinda hard to hide strategic bombers and all that travel with them to forward deployment areas. Ditto with wings of fighters or the 3 ring circus what trails major troops staging.

If London is saying no no...then it's final final in my mind. If they're playing a game with it, the egg London will literally be swimming in as they are REMINDED Iran has access to such imagery would be Epic to see. I just don't take the British as fools or idiots. They know all this too....and so, I take them at their word on this.

reply to post by TXRabbit


Happens quite a lot, actually. Governments leak, badly. If you want another example, look at the whole "45 min" claim and the sexed up dossiers. There will always be someone who, for ideological, moral or financial reasons, will leak info to the press. Papers such as the Guardian, the Telegraph and Times are the best at it as well.

reply to post by Trillium


Ahh, the ubiquitous false flag claims... That never happen..

Its politics.

Theres no appetite in the UK for it. The 'pre-emptive' attack card was used up with the Iraq dodgy dossier. The coalition government is sufficiently unpopular with austerity that they have no political capital to even attempt those kind of arguments.

If war breaks out we will provide what help is requested, its just massively inconvenient to mention it before the fact.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
In no way do I doubt the veracity of the OP source; however, I must ask....why would the US need to base nuclear weapons in the UK when the US could easily base them in Israel; a much closer and relevant geopolitical position?

maybe that is because Israel has no capacity for extra more nuclear bombs !

Personaly, I don't believe that America will strike Iran anytime soon, I believe that America has taken another path, the attempt to cause a revolution in Iran.

The sanctions are a pointer for this, cause economic crisis, the public are effected hard and get angry.
The currency is taking hit after hit, and the people are getting more and more angry.
The elections are coming around soon, and if the public begin to hate Armahgiliedwjndxszk (can't spell his name, lol) and he gets put in again for another term, that could be what starts it off, and America will be there to supply the rebels against him (sound farmilier??). IMO, I believe that a millitary strike is the last option on the table, if a revolt doesn't happen, or just in case. This is just my opinion though, but an all out war would be hard to sell, compared to helping out rebels fighting their government. Seems to be a success so far in several countries, but Iran is bigger. I see the Arab Spring as a sort of, well, practice/training for the main mission.