Blair refuses to back Iran strike

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Stella, Apr 15, 2006.

  1. Stella macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #1
    At least one country is learning from Iraq...
    Sanity.

    Quote:
    "The approach contrasts sharply with the strategy employed during the run-up to the war in Iraq, when ministers repeatedly issued grim warnings to Saddam Hussein over the consequences of not falling in line with their demands."

    Unfortunately, some here on MacRumours have consistency been gullible enough to listen to the u.s scare tactics and really believe in them.

    http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=577092006

    Blair refuses to back Iran strike
    BRIAN BRADYWESTMINSTER EDITOR
    TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.

    Amid increasing tension over Tehran's attempts to develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed.


    US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is calling on the United Nations to consider new sanctions against Tehran when the Security Council meets next week to discuss the developing crisis. Blair is expected to support the call for a "Chapter 7" resolution, which could effectively isolate Iran from the international community.

    But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on Tehran, and Britain's military commitments around the world, the government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. "We will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike."

    Meanwhile, a new report on the Iran crisis has warned that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on "collision course" with Tehran.

    The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), often referred to as Blair's "favourite think-tank", will appeal for a greater effort to find a diplomatic solution in a report to be published later this week. FPC director Stephen Twigg, formerly a Labour minister, explained: "It is essential UK policy on Iran is well informed... We want to engage with the various reformist elements in Iran, both inside and outside the structures of power.

    "There is potential for political dialogue, economic ties and cultural contacts to act as catalysts for the strengthening of civil society in Iran."

    While the sense of crisis over Iran has been escalated by the fiery rhetoric between Tehran and the West - particularly Washington - many within the British government are now convinced that the impasse can be resolved by repeating the same sort of painstaking diplomatic activity that returned Libya to the international fold.

    The approach contrasts sharply with the strategy employed during the run-up to the war in Iraq, when ministers repeatedly issued grim warnings to Saddam Hussein over the consequences of not falling in line with their demands.

    "The only long-term solution to Iran's problems is democracy," said Alex Bigham, co-author of the FPC report. "But it cannot be dictated, Iraq-style, or it will backfire. Iran may seem superficially like Iraq but we need to treat Iran more like Libya. Diplomatic engagement must be allowed to run its course. There need to be bigger carrots as well as bigger sticks."

    However, the conciliatory language was not reflected in the approach from Washington, where senior figures in the Bush administration remain keen to stress the danger of Tehran's intentions.

    In a declaration aimed at America's allies as much as Iran, Rice claimed the Security Council's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue would be a test of the international community's credibility. "If the UN Security Council says: 'You must do these things and we'll assess in 30 days,' and Iran has not only not done those things, but has taken steps that are exactly the opposite of those that are demanded, then the Security Council is going to have to act."

    Rice dismissed Iran's declaration that it is only interested in enriching uranium for use in civil nuclear power facilities, saying the international community must remain focused on the potential military applications of this technology.

    "The world community does not want them to have that nuclear know-how and that's why nobody wants them to be able to enrich and reprocess on their territory, getting to the place that they can produce what we call a full-scale nuclear plant to be able to do this," she said.

    Rice reiterated that President Bush has not taken any option off the table, including a military response, if Iran fails to comply with the demands of the international community.
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Wait, are you saying that you think just because Tony Blair doesn't want to get his hands dirty again, that Bush will stop considering an attack on Iran?

    'Cuz I hate to break it to you, but if God tells Bush to go, Tony Blair's stance on the war won't be worth a four card flush.
     
  3. Stella thread starter macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #3
    Erm, since when did I even suggest this? I think never....

    GW Bush is a southern red neck cowboy and doesn't give a damn about his ( lack of ) popularity.

    However, I agree with you :-D If he hears voice in his head, that he believes is from 'god', he'll follow through.
     
  4. Danksi macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #4
    Britain would likely reshuffle it's forces in other deployments, to free up US troops for Iran.
     
  5. Stella thread starter macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #5
    Britain should pull out altogether, they have more pressing problems to worry about. The burden of Iraq should lay 100% on the states.
     
  6. Danksi macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #6
    .. I seem to recall seeing a note that they're already planning to pull out within the next year. Gonna' be a mess when they do though.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Ok, i wasn't sure where you were going with the whole 'we've been gullible' thing. Are we not scared enough that Bush will nuke someone? Or are you saying we're too scared of something that won't happen?
     
  8. Stella thread starter macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    I'm being very specific here... if you don't know what I'm picking up on, don't worry!
     
  9. Stella thread starter macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #9
    I heard they were going to withdraw 8,000 troops from Iraq, but now you mention it, I do recall about the beginnings of a complete withdrawal - Iraqi security forces will be ready etc.. ( or something like that ).
     
  10. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #10
    Looks like Tony has finally grown a pair of balls instead of blindly following what bush says
     
  11. crazycat macrumors 65816

    crazycat

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    #12
    Someone learnt his lesson.

    Why would you attack a country that had fought two wars in the past 15 years, was weak and many other problems rather then a country which sells necular info (N. Korea) and a country that could build necular weapons and probebly has WoMD's (Iran)?
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    is not an unequivocal rejection of US policy. Words, it's just words.
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #14
    That is one of the most ignorant statements you have ever made, The responsibility should be the worlds. But like has been said before the world couldnt decide on its next lunch let alone a rogue secret underground weapons program by a card carrying memeber of a military religion like Islam that wants Israel wiped off the map. Nuclear weapons is a world problem.

    U.S. world police because well you heard it from Stella. No one else will or can or doesnt care about the proliferation of these weapons.:confused:
     
  14. Stella thread starter macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #15
    LOL - I never mentioned or suggested that US being the world's police... you are putting words into my mouth.

    The US is driven on fear and scare tactics, with black and white statements such as:
    "If your not with us, your against us".

    Give me a break.

    The states goes into conflicts without a second thought and gun-ho, Iraq is a good example of this. As I've said previously,the u.s has never has been affected by a modern war on its *own* soil, with cities destroyed, mass loss of civilian life ( www2 and forward )- if it had it wouldn't be so ready to start conflicts. And no, 9/11 doesn't count - that is a side show in comparison to real destruction.

     
  15. Danksi macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #16
    Regrettably so...
     
  16. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #17
    I have to agree. Knowing Blair as we do now, I wouldn't put much store in statements like this. He would have no problem (linguistic or philosophical) in arguing the exact opposite if it suited him.
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    It should be, but when Bush invaded unilaterally while the rest of the world said "hold on, let's let the inspectors look" he owned the problem. Would the world have deserved credit had Bush found what he said were there? No, and nor would Bush have let the world forget it. That's the outcome when you gamble. Nope, we broke it, why should we expect the world to pay to fix it?

    The only way the rest of the world would even want to get involved right now is if the US comes to them hat-in-hand and asks nicely for help -- and then doesn't bully anyone into doing things our way. Outside of that, why should anyone help us? Would you offer to help someone pay for the item they broke though their own incompetence if you were out shopping? Or would you walk on, thinking "Let that be a lesson to you"?

    Sure it's a world problem. But put yourself in Iran's position. Would you be trying to get nuclear weapons? Of course. More importantly, would you be trying to acquire them to hand them off to terrorists and risk their hold on power, or would you be trying to acquire them to keep yourself in power?

    Utter nonsense. Lot's of other countries care about proliferation. Many have signed the NPT. Unfortunately the US doesn't have the moral high ground here, having both used nuclear weapons in combat before, as well as possessing a large and ongoing nuclear program.

    You do realize that other countries see it as hypocritical when we demand that others stop their nuclear programs while we expand ours?
     
  18. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #19
    That is one of the most ignorant statements you have ever made, not to mention bigoted.

    You could just have easily said:

    The world couldn't decide on its next lunch let alone stop a rogue illegal war by a bible beating member of a military religion like Christianity.

    You are using scare tactics rather than thinking logically. Iran is 6-10 years away from obtaining a nuclear weapon. When they do get one, Israel will still be far ahead of them concerning nuclear technology. Even so, why would they nuke Israel? That makes no sense: they'd wipe out Palestine and piss millions of Muslims off, then they'd be completely demolished by Israel's superior weaponry.

    Please stop relying on fear and think about this from a third party perspective.
     
  19. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #20
    let us take this opportunity to review the third pillar of the NPT, of which iran is a signatory:
    iow, iran has a right to enrich uranium.
     
  20. jadam, Apr 16, 2006
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2013

    jadam macrumors 6502a

    jadam

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #21
    -
     
  21. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    as a signatory of the NPT, iran has a right to enrich uranium.

    how does ahmadinejad talking about israel differ from bush talking about the so-called axis of evil? it's propaganda, chest-puffing and rallying around the flag, pure and simple.

    and once more, for diction: iran has a right to enrich uranium.
     
  22. jadam, Apr 16, 2006
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2013

    jadam macrumors 6502a

    jadam

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #23
    -
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #24
    i just laid out for you what's going on. talking about the destruction of a whole state? what do you consider what bush did in iraq? despite years of sanctions, iraq was functioning. now it is not. bush destroyed it.

    and what if the UN told us that we had to stop enriching our own uranium and get it from canada? would we? no, we're a proud nation. so is iran. ditch your US-centric dogma and try on someone's else's shoes for a bit. iran is a sovereign country, proud, technically-competent and a signatory of the NPT. they have a right to enrich uranium.
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #25
    Am I the only one here who feels damned if we do and damned if we don't? I'm not comfortable with what they're is doing, and fear what they are capable of... but now that I've said that, I realize I could have been referring to Iran or Bush.

    We're all doomed BTW, either way.
     

Share This Page