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 ...
"No they don't. It would take a NATO coaltion from the US, UK, Germany, etc. and maybe a few other countries like India to launch an effective strike on Iran and take out their nuclear facilities. The UK doesn't have enough air power to take out the Iranian nuclear program."
Since you mentioned NATO, this calls to mind an important point: Europe should be far more nervous about Iran's nuke programme than they have appeared to be; they are within range of the long-range missiles that Iran currently has and are suspected to be developing.
I, too, think that attack would be a multi-national operation due to our current commitments and the size of the task. the situation in Iran is a boil that has been allowed to fester; 'tis time to lance it.
If they feel they need to use the former they'll get no objection from this quarter.
Perhaps we should write our congessmen about that. At 61 I could still command an EOD team.
MIT, Lawrence Livermore, Cal Tech....get to work, we have a long way to go and a short time to get there.
Works for me. As long as SOMEONE gets to it in time.
We'll see.
I usually post lead articles from The Telegraph (UK) each evening at about 8:00PM, my time, 9:00PM eastern.
I'm curious about the rhetoric coming out of Iran. It seems to have the volume bumped up a notch or two. They must be close to having a nuke, if they don't already have one.
On the other hand, this isn't really anything different than what they've been saying since the 70's, and been actively supporting -- giving money and arms to terrorist groups who attack Israel.
Blair has the nerve to be shocked and outraged just now?? Maybe, it's just now he might be willing to do something about it.
No. The EU 3, UK, France & Germany have asked him to let them negotiate a solution. He has apparently 'stood-down' based on their request.
"I don't think that Israel bought hundreds of bunker busters from us just to start a bunker buster collection."
They've got some capabilities. But having 60 or 70 fighter-bombers that can reach Iran is likely not sufficient for the job at hand. The pesky thing about bunkers is that you can't see through them so even if you can bust your way in there, you have no idea whether there are actual weapons there or decoys.
They could, however, easily take out the nuclear reactor at Beshehr, thereby greatly hindering if not eliminating Iran's plutonium enrichment program. But I'm not at all optimistic about their ability to do the same with regard to their uranium enrichment program- thousands of uranium enrichment centrifuges that could be spread out who knows where don't exactly make an easy target.
Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having nuclear weapons?”
dud... I have been for 20 years
My long time concern has been the possibility that a nutcase like this guy in Iran decides not to wait and see if Israel will strike first, and instead pre-emtively strikes Israel.
If they decided to try, how would they do it? Would they use missles or Aircraft? Whose airspace would they need to over-fly?
I am thinking the same thing you are. Something is fixing to happen in the next six months or so.
What is your prediction? How will they react?
I would like to agree with you, but I am not convinced this Administration still has the stomach for another military fight and propaganda fight against World Opinion. Too bad, both are fights we need to have, ASAP, IMHO.
At 62 I could still run a diesel sub. (Let's Roll)
That is why we need something like the "Why We Fight Films" of WWII here. Even if we actually have to come up with a "Radio Free America" in the country run by the government. We can not depend on our news media. They are so blinded by hate against the Republicans, they don't care what happens to this country.
If Id been thinking about this for 20 years I would have been thinking about it since I was 2. HA!
No question. They'll slam Blair and accuse him of being a 'cowboy' like GWB.
Is it really so hard to take out Iran's nuclear facilities? I assume that the Iranian air defenses would be easily overcome, and after that, why not just keep bombing until something critical breaks? Perhaps a Chernobyl-type containment breach would kill too many civilians--?
I wasn't the people of Iran that voted for this guy. The vote was fixed by the Mullahs to put a hardliner in charge since they are starting to feel the heat from the masses and wanted a crack down. THe mullahs would let over 80% of the people who wanted to run in elections. The fix was in.
I feel sorry for the majority of Iranians who have to live under such an evil, demented government bent on distabalizing the world.
I have a feeling the reason Iran is soo been banging the sword soo much lately is Russia has been telling them to go for it and "we got your back" and how Syria who's been their proxy for fighting the Israelis is about to get bitchslapped.
What the hell is Iran going to do when they can't pay someone else to fight their wars for them? (Syria, Hizbollah, etc...) Their own military is more hopeless than Saddam's was.
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.