Posted on 10/27/2005 3:12:25 PM PDT by markedmannerf
TONY BLAIR served warning last night that the West might have to take military action against Iran after worldwide condemnation of its President’s call for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.
Ending a one-day European Union summit, the Prime Minister called the explosive declaration by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday a disgrace.
Promising discussions with Washington and other allies over how to react, Mr Blair said that he had often been urged not to take action against Iran.
But, he continued: “If they carry on like this the question people will be asking us is — when are you going to do something about Iran? Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having nuclear weapons?”
It was the first time Mr Blair had even hinted at military action and his words are likely to alarm Labour MPs. Mr Blair, clearly angry at the President’s outburst, said that there were people in Iran’s leadership who believed that the world was sufficiently distracted with everything else that it could not afford to focus on the nuclear arms issue.
“They will be making a very big mistake if they do that. Those sentiments are completely unacceptable. I have never come across a situation in which the President of a country has said they want to wipe out another country — not that they have a problem with a country but they want to wipe it out. That is completely unacceptable.”
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Why mess around and get more people killed? Unrepresentative governments end with the deaths of their leaders. Take out the political leadership and a handful of military leaders and the enemy loses the ability to act effectively against us.
Now Canada has been condemning Iran and planning to have them removed from the UN Human Right Committee. I guess this means Canada will be lining up to take Iran on when it comes to a military showdown.
'Our guess is Defcon 4. The Buffalos are gassed up and ready to rotate off and wheels up.'
4? Got a ways to go then. Buffalos? Brewster ones.
Yup, that'll work.
:-)
Way to go, Mr. Blair!
If you want to do some bombing, I'd recommend bombing the regime out of power, with special forces and other elite teams on the ground to try to limit the amount of nuclear material that would go "missing"...
i think there are a number of variables we need to consider here.
1. they probably have the capability to produce dirty bombs now and they would have no moral issues about that (but we cannot wait any longer)
2. syria and iran have a mutual cooperation pact, so u need two invasious (i guess they will decapitate syria as a first strike and will attack iran)
3. i cannot see kuwait supporting this becuase of the israel comment
4. iran has already called for 100 dolar a barrell cost for oil for infidel states, hence we know how they plan to attack initially -- it will be economic
5. they have a huge army and air force and subs. yes they are poor but they are huge.
6. we can expect action in southern iraq behind the lines action and i suspect terrorist activity in the west. they will arm al Q and i find it very interesting that they already are letting these guys roam free in Iran.
7. 150K approx troops in iraq is not enough
8. russia and china will exploit this for their own agendas so they will NOT help (china has delivered weapons and comms already, russia has launched the first iranian satellite and helped their nuke programme. china in particular is playing a very dangerous game here but they will hope for a vastly weakened US to enable them to compete in the superpower stakes
9. france and germany are sterile, they wont help and to be honest, trying to integrate them to a US command and control would be suicidal at this stage -- they are so far behind in experience and ability and technology.
10. iranians are persians and hate arabs and vice versa but i would not count on that once the bullets fly
his burn israel comments do not suit the arab league but i cannot see any arab country supporting an invasion to protect israel.
our troops are stretched, what we need here is a collaspe from within...that is the most simple and most effective and most probable. i think the west should plough support to the democratic process in iran. Iran has (to be fair) been shafted before in their past by the west (particularly the UK and to a lesser extent the US) and we should not underestimate that feeling, they will rush to support their government in the event of an invasion. i say no to invasion and yes to destabilisation. However, i am not blind, it does look like we will be forced to act and if so we should go when it suits us and not them...
on the very plus side, the current military expertise is there (we have the most battle hardened and experienced troops on the planet), and that is worth more then any bunker buster...should it be required...
still that just my opinion...
It is ironic isn't it...
Yes
Have these been delivered yet?
Said acts to be timed very coincidently with terrorist attacks against western interests.
See how long it takes Iran to get the message. Where commando attacks pose too great a risk for discovery, an attack from an anonymous missile will do.
"good call"
thanks.
"Why mess around and get more people killed? Unrepresentative governments end with the deaths of their leaders. Take out the political leadership and a handful of military leaders and the enemy loses the ability to act effectively against us."
That would not be enough to effect regime change in Iran.
I have a feeling, in the years to come, we will thank Bush for the military build up and deployments he's ordered.
Total War in the Middle East will come when the bad guys see a weak POTUS, such as the likes of Hillary Clinton (or Democrat) getting elected.
We'll be fortunate to be already in position to eradicate the threats to peace once and for all.
I agree there is a strong contingent of Iranians that would like nothing better than to greet our tanks and hmmvees. I wish we would arm the opposition. I doubt we would carpet bomb them.
Good for Blair! I regret that Bush missed a golden opportunity to chime in as well. In fact, he should have called a press conference condemning Ahmadinejad and Iran for the unprecedented and unacceptable threat to Israel and stressed that military consequences WILL BE SWIFT if Iran EVER threatens or takes action against Israel again.
The only thing radical militant terrorists understand is power and death. People everywhere know Bush says what he means and means what he says. It was a missed opportunity for Bush to stick a figurative finger in Ahmadinejad's chest and push him back, IMO.
Israel doesn't need Great Britton to fight its battles, just keep the french from stabbing them in the back while they are otherwise occupied.
Yep, I think you make a valid point. Any decent WWII war game should show those results.
Arabs have wanted to push the Jews into the sea the same day the state of Isreal was created by the UN. Nothing new
"Yep, I think you make a valid point. Any decent WWII war game should show those results."
I'd like you to expand on that if you care to. While I've read a fair amount of military history, and had an interest and experience with games like Stratego, chess, Risk, and some Milton Bradley, Civil War game (I'm talking about the 1960s), I have never played the sort of game you refer to (maybe tried a hexagonal game one time).
On the face of it, it would seem like a realistic recreation of the situation Kimche describes would not be "game like" because once the Germans attacked Poland they would certainly lose. I suppose, however, they would not attack Poland. But then I can see how they would win either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.