Gordon Brown won't rule out UK role in Iran.

Gordon Brown won't rule out UK role in Iran.

news.sky.com

Gordon Brown has refused to rule out British participation in any future military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

But in an exclusive interview with Sky News, the Prime Minister said diplomatic efforts in Iran were making progress.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Should have expected this really. Blair did it and now Brown will show he has learnt absoloutely nothing from the past few years.

Besides, why go on about future military attacks on Iran when things are going well wth diplomatic efforts? Hardly a good way to ease tensions is it?

War is never a nice thing, but i've no problems with our country going to war when neccessary, but lets hope that next time we have a better excuse than the last!

I hope Brown is not as easily led as Blair was too, however i fear he will just end up another lapdog for whichever country wants one.

CX.

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Not for the first time-he also said as much just before he got his new job as PM.
But he had to really,just like he had to say he wanted a new world order.
These were key comments to the global elite,to show them that he was still "on message,"and reassure them that he will be bowing down to their plans.

Since World War II, Britain has been at war in every decade.

Sadly, war is in our blood and our history.

reply to post by infinite


Or is it that war is in the blood of our Governments?
Most of the people do not want war as far as I see.

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Or is it that war is in the blood of our Governments?
Most of the people do not want war as far as I see.

So you are saying we should of ignored the Falkland Islands, allowed Bosnia and Kosovo to be destroyed by genocide, rebels taking control and killing thousands across Sierra Leone?

I don't know about you, but I like it when the government prevents genocides and mass killings of innocent people.

(sits and waits for you to play the "Iraq card"

[edit on 11-11-2007 by infinite]

Quite a poignant day to bring this up, what with it being Remembrance Sunday.

However, this makes sense strategically. To completely rule out force would be a grave tactical error when dealing with Iran; why would they bother to carry on the diplomatic route if they knew the West wouldn't attack? It's the tried-and-tested 'carrot and stick' method. To get rid of the stick would put a peaceful settlement to this dispute in serious danger since there would be no longer any incentive to continue to negotiate.

I have faith that Brown has learned from Blair's mistakes, particularly over Iraq (which hounded Blair until the day he left office... and no doubt beyond). If he does get involved in military action in Iran and there's an attempted whitewash (or it's perceived this way by the public) over the evidence for going to war in the first place then Gordon Brown will last about half a term as Prime Minister. Not something you want when you've had to wait for the job for the last 13 years, is it? Besides which, by the time it comes to the crunch the decision to go to into battle might be solely in the hands of Parliament, which is a better situation than at present.

Iran will be different, it has the potential to get public support.

I don't know about you, but I fail to break a smile when some crazy mullahs are chanting "Death to England".

Blair was right with Iraq and removed a dictatorship (unlike the anti-war crowd, i didn't support Saddam or the gassing of the Kurds. Which, again, the anti-war crowd fail to mention) but it will be difficult for Brown, unless he removes all our troops from Iraq first.

If he doesn't, then those remaining troops will be the first target Iran goes for.

reply to post by infinite


Oh yes indeed Iran will be different.They have 66 million people and a "proper" army,unlike Iraq.

op by infinite "Blair was right with Iraq and removed a dictatorship (unlike the anti-war crowd, i didn't support Saddam or the gassing of the Kurds. Which, again, the anti-war crowd fail to mention)"

Well Tony may have been right in your opinion to remove a dictator-just a shame he failed to tell us that was his plan instead of dressing it up in the lies we all know.(he only changed his tune to "getting rid of a dictator" after the lies were exposed.
The same dictator,BTW,that we and the USA supported,funded and armed during the horrible gassing of the Kurds.
Gee-I wonder where he got those precursor chemicals from?

If it was all about getting rid of dictators-Why the hell are Musharaff,Mugabe and Mad Kim still breathing?

Sorry for the double post,but I missed this bit before:

op by infinite"I don't know about you, but I like it when the government prevents genocides and mass killings of innocent people.

Maybe you should tell them to stop using Depleted Uranium munitions in the middle east then-that may help to prevent a genocide in progress.

Originally posted by infinite
I don't know about you, but I fail to break a smile when some crazy mullahs are chanting "Death to England".

Not far removed from the Fox News watching and Sun reading idiots who will always go along with and champion war in some misguided chest beating macho way, without actually understanding what it's all about.

Blair was right with Iraq and removed a dictatorship (unlike the anti-war crowd, i didn't support Saddam or the gassing of the Kurds. Which, again, the anti-war crowd fail to mention) but it will be difficult for Brown, unless he removes all our troops from Iraq first.

So, being anti-war is seen as supporting the latest perceived enemy? Hell, our own leadership, both parties, and the backroom boys were supporting Saddam for decades. That was ok though as long as he was OUR dictator


This planned campaign against Iran has nothing to do with us. It's Israel and the USA that are itching to attack and Iran poses no threat to us unless we deliberately provoke them. The residents of the Outer Hebrides would likely fight us too if we attacked them on trumped up and false reasons.
What Iran does in it's own back yard is their business, the same as what we do here is no business of theirs.
Years of diplomacy and moderation on the part of the Iranian leadership went up in smoke as soon as that cokehead drunk Bush came out with his idiotic "Axis of Evil" speech. A decade of diplomacy and progress washed away by a warmongering, corporate lapdog.

The British people should take a hard stance on this and keep well away from the mess it will create.

Originally posted by infinite
So you are saying we should of ignored the Falkland Islands, allowed Bosnia and Kosovo to be destroyed by genocide, rebels taking control and killing thousands across Sierra Leone?

I don't know about you, but I like it when the government prevents genocides and mass killings of innocent people.

(sits and waits for you to play the "Iraq card"

[edit on 11-11-2007 by infinite]

The Falklands wasn't genocide, they were just taking back land England stole. Also preventing genocide as you call in ti on Kosovo onvolve killing far more innocent Serbian civilians than were killed in Kosovo.

posted by infinite
I don't know about you, but I fail to break a smile when some crazy mullahs are chanting "Death to England".

Infinite, c'mon man. An educated chap like yourself must understand the history of western meddling in Iran and the wider Middle east. Is it hard to understand why they feel so much hatred towards us?

posted by infinite
So you are saying we should of ignored the Falkland Islands, allowed Bosnia and Kosovo to be destroyed by genocide, rebels taking control and killing thousands across Sierra Leone?

I don't know about you, but I like it when the government prevents genocides and mass killings of innocent people.

If only they were consistent, hey? For every dictator they claim to take down, another 10 are left in office.

posted by infinite
Iran will be different, it has the potential to get public support

Er, no it doesn't. What makes you think that?

Not a soul I speak to in my day to day life thinks attacking Iran, for whatever reason, is a good idea. At the least, it is generally accepted by most people I speak to that we would likely take alot of casualties and cause more trouble than it is worth.

posted by infinite
Blair was right with Iraq and removed a dictatorship (unlike the anti-war crowd, i didn't support Saddam or the gassing of the Kurds. Which, again, the anti-war crowd fail to mention) but it will be difficult for Brown, unless he removes all our troops from Iraq first.

Shame we were lied to then, hey? If he told the truth and just said "Let's go get Saddam", we wouldn't have the backlash. I would have supported it, but now I don't as I was lied too.

Also, it's very touching you care for the Kurds, but you do know it was the West that gave sSddam to capability because we were supporting him in his INVASION of IRAN.

That's how we knew of his "WMD's". We had the receipts!

posted by infinite
If he doesn't, then those remaining troops will be the first target Iran goes for.

Indeed. Nothing to be singing about either. Maybe it's why we're drawing down quickly.

posted by mad scientist
The Falklands wasn't genocide, they were just taking back land England stole.

Actually, no. Some may claim Argentina inherited the Spanish claims to the Falklands after the Nootchka convention, but people forget to mention that the British colonists were there for 30 years before being invaded and kicked out by Spanish troops.

When we took the islands back in 1834, they were only inhabited by Pirates. It was actually the Americans who destroyed the last Spanish colony in the early 1830's, as they were refusing access to whaling grounds.

posted by mad scientist
Also preventing genocide as you call in ti on Kosovo onvolve killing far more innocent Serbian civilians than were killed in Kosovo

Indeed and the much vaunted NATO airpower did bugger all against the Serbian military, who evaded the airstrikes for several weeks through deception and skill. Only 1000 Serbian soldiers died, mostly from a series of strikes against barracks within Serbia, not Kosovo, where the soldiers were not prepared for aerial attack.

Bear in mind that the the Iranians are much more advanced than the Serbs were then, so it's likely to be quite difficult should our Glorious Leader's want a slice of Iranian pie.

Well said Stu.
Amazingly well said.
Anyone support a war in Iran?

So you like mass troop and civilian casualties,total economic meltdown,a war lasting for the decades as predicted by the neo cons?
You must also like the fact that this one will at least cause a wave of radiation deaths,not only from DU,but also the fallout created by bombing Iranian research sites/reactors.The Tehran research reactor must be high on US attack priorities,for example...they did help build it after all.
If they bomb that-its like a big fat Chernobyl in a Capital city.
Anyone really want to support that sort of thing?
Really?

For Gods sake,wouldn't it be a better world if this war was averted?

reply to post by CX


no wounder the Twit bailed out on the elections that he said would happen
and funny enough today is remembrence day
how many lives from the UK does he want to sacrafice to keep his handlers happy?

also Inf, a large majority of us in the UK are against this war in Iraq and will def be when it comes to Iran.

also well said stumason

[edit on 11-11-2007 by bodrul]

Originally posted by stumason
Not a soul I speak to in my day to day life thinks attacking Iran, for whatever reason, is a good idea. At the least, it is generally accepted by most people I speak to that we would likely take alot of casualties and cause more trouble than it is worth.

Indeed. A legacy of Iraq. And it's inevitable, isn't it? If the government fudged the issue once to go to war, they might very well do so again so people are wary about trusting them. It's like putting your finger in a flame: you get burnt, and thus the pain makes you unwilling to do it again.

This was a very dangerous precedent to set, because if a scenario arises in which force has to be used and the British public isn't behind the decision because they're suspicious of the government's objectives and motives the consequences could be dire.

For the record, whilst I do not think the government should ever rule out any course of action towards Iran (it's important to keep our cards close to our chest in situations like this), force must be the last option. The political fallout from an attack on Iran would dwarf that of Iraq, and it is most certainly not something we should enter into lightly.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that force must be used at this point (however, I'm not convinced by the Iranian line that they don't want nuclear weapons, either). Negotiations are the way forward, and force is an absolute last resort.

Originally posted by stumason
Infinite, c'mon man. An educated chap like yourself must understand the history of western meddling in Iran and the wider Middle east. Is it hard to understand why they feel so much hatred towards us?

Yeah I understand the history, especially us backing the Iranian Monarchy, but we were right to do so. And, when Iran kidnapped our troops, you know full well I thought military action should of been taken,

If it was all about getting rid of dictators-Why the hell are Musharaff,Mugabe and Mad Kim still breathing?

Silcone Synapse if you've read my other posts on ATS you will see that I've called for Britain to remove Mugabe and to stop the funding of Musharaff.

North Korea is difficult because the people are brainwashed and there is China too.

Anyone support a war in Iran?

Do you want me to honestly answer that?

[edit on 11-11-2007 by infinite]

I sincerely hope that Gordon Brown is just bluffing. If not then I think someone needs to have a quiet word in Mr Brown's ear that there is no justification for attacking Iran and therefore, it would be illegal.

The UK getting into anymore wars is a bad idea the country needs to downgrade it's military for starters. And draw up a scheme of how it can remove itself from NATO and the EU. This will pave the way for devolution of the union.

People are tired of getting involved in wars. Back in the day the UK had a reason to get involved in wars, the empire kept the Scots, English, Welsh and Irish busy killing native people, all for sake of our masters profit margin.

Can't we get off the war trip and have a 100 years of quiet reflection on all our bad deeds. All we do is create more carnage and it appears were just doing the globalists dirty work.

Hi There,

Of course, Brown cannot rule out military action in Iran, just as he cannot rule it out in any other country or state. In the end, it is simply political rhetoric. At the same time, I cannot vindicate any particular reason why Britain should stay out of a conflict that other countries seek to pursue against Iran...whether the reasons are justified or not. The bigger picture is that wars are now primarily fought on and for business issues, and not fought as 'conscience' wars in seeking to safeguard another country or people against an external or internal aggressor.

Sunday was 'Remembrance Day', where people met at cenotaphs and churches up and down the country to remember those whom died in WW1. This was a political war. The usual case of old men sending young men to particular places to die ignominous deaths in political slaughter regions...not unlike today's contemporary conflicts.
WW2 was a conscience war, where Britain declared war on Germany to stop Nazi conquest and also Japanese Imperialism (not forgetting the other countries whom joined in with Britain). No war or conflict since the end of WW2 has ever been fought on conscience, only on political and business expedience.

Israel has unequivocably stated that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable by any terms, and although I can fully understand that country's fear, I find it hard to reconcile within myself any justification for Israel to dictate any terms of self-empowerment to any other country. This is apropos to America encircling Russia with missle systems whence America, herself, denied the same for Russia during the Cuba-crisis...what hypocrisy! The pacifying statement by America that the missiles are for the protection of the countries they are in against terrorist states is total bunkum. Wherever you place a missile system, that place becomes an automatic target. I bring this point up to show the consistent inconsistency surrounding reasons for conflict, and how the potential for conflict arises out of nothing...or more to the point, out of political expediency. What we have now is a more aggressive stance being taken up by Russia, where previously she had no reason to do so. The world has cowered into the darker recesses of 'distrust', which has become a political sine qua non device used to secure political will over another country or state, by dressing and lying it up in reasons of conscience. Today, the best device for politicians is that of your conscience, and how they reflect it back upon you to gain your support and compliance to potential conflict you do not in your heart...want.

We must support the troops. We must be patriotic. We must attack them 'before' they attack us or our neighbour. We must not allow them to gain nuclear weaponry...simply because we do not trust them, because of the reasons we have given them through history to distrust us...

I'm sorry, but I do not support the troops in conflicts I do not agree with. They are there not sacrificing their lives for me or my country, but as sacrifices for political expediency and business. I would support them going into Zimbabwe, or Darfur, etc, places where there is nothing to gain but a peace for the people in those places. When Hussein went into Kuwait, I supported our troop's involvement then, but now that Hussein has been removed, where is the peace for Iraq? It's far worse now then it ever was under Hussein, and that's because America wants to see another 'puppet regime installed, but your so-called insurgents are having none of that. To think that the American government talked about Saddam's removal because of his being in power was a 'instability' to the region...yeah, right!, now that he's dead, the region is very stable. America wants to stabilise the region even more by involving itself with Iran. I don't know about you, but I think America has some very unstable issues when it comes to concepts of stability...every country it involves itself with turns to shyte!

So yes, Brown is right not to rule out conflict in Iran...we might have to go in to kick the Yanks out!

Best wishes