Flash: Iran Invasion Being Prepared

[Carrera]

From what I can gather, Blair already agreed to support Bush several months ago in a plan to invade Iran. This process has already been put in motion with a speech given yesterday whereby Iran was accused of supplying munitions to Iraq:

"However, the senior official, speaking anonymously yesterday, blamed Iran’s Revolutionary Guard for supplying the advanced technology that had helped Iraqi insurgents to kill British soldiers with the more lethal roadside bombs."

However, these politicians are shrewd. They know that if any public declaration of an attack on Iran is announced, public opposition will be very severe. The plan, therefore, is to simply escalate tensions and possibly provoke Iran to retaliate against U.K. troops placed near Iran's border. The accusations of roadside bombs is just the preliminary set of feelers being put out to prepare the public conscience.

There has also been an attempt made to escalate tensions over Iran's nuclear program and try to obtain the support of the U.N.

At some point, military advances will take place within the borders of Iran, at which point we'll be informed the said incursions have been made due to a need to defend Iraq and any troops based in that area. Moreover, Bush doesn't plan to send many ground troops into Iran but will rely on air strikes.

Quote:

"From March 21 to March 24, 2003, Iranian air-space had been violated with impunity by US aircraft. The US attacked the oil-industry communities of Khorramshahr, Abadan and Manyuhi in Iran not far from the US-UK-Kuwaiti controlled Faw Peninsula and Umm al Qasr--control points for the Shatt al Arb through which billions of gallons of crude oil have passed to the US, UK and Japan. The oil refinery and depots in Abadan were the primary targets. The were casualties but no deaths. US and UK bombers have also circled over Arvand-Kenar in Iran on their way into Iraq. Iranian officials have protested these violations of International Law, but to no avail. Pentagon officials declared the cause of the attacks to be "stray" cruise missiles and bombs. That is improbable."

"These attacks (and overflights), it seems, were part of the preprogrammed target packages planned early on by US military commanders to test, or light up, Iranian air defenses for the invasion."

 

[roadhog]

I see. And all that you describe here is more probable than the presence of some Iranian nationals in Iraq presently contributing to car bombs, etc? FYI, there are brigades of organized Iranians who readily admit they would love the opportunity to sacrifice themselves in an explosive-laden vehicle in Iraq. I would think it is quite likely that some have partaken.

From what I can gather, Blair already agreed to support Bush several months ago in a plan to invade Iran. This process has already been put in motion with a speech given yesterday whereby Iran was accused of supplying munitions to Iraq:
<< major snip >>

 

[darkboong]

FYI, there are brigades of organized Iranians who readily admit they would love the opportunity to sacrifice themselves in an explosive-laden vehicle in Iraq. I would think it is quite likely that some have partaken.

Where's your proof ? The official briefed correspondants on the "condition of Anonymity". The same deal happened with the Yellow Cake fiasco, shortly after the anonymous briefing Blair stood at the podium and quoted it as Gospel Truth. Well blow me, he's done just that again...

Here's an exercise for you : Take a look at a map of the region.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=lebanon&ll=31.541090,47.504883&spn=27.703280,39.159668&hl=en

You will notice that Lebanon is on the West side of Iraq, whereas Iran is on the East side of Iraq. The arms would have to have travelled through Syria, Jordan, Israel, Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq or Turkey (and combinations thereof) before they even got to Iran.

It seems like a lot of trouble to go to when you could simply walk across the Jordanian border carrying a rucksack of RPGs. In fact it seems that the only reason that you would go to that trouble is if you have some agenda that requires you to travel all the way across Iraq to Iran - eg : setting Iran up.

Furthermore Iran has every reason not to kick up a storm in Iraq, if anything their interests are better served by a stable Shia majority running the place. That is something they have been trying to achieve since before the Iran-Iraq war.

 

[roadhog]

Where's your proof ? The official briefed correspondants on the "condition of Anonymity". The same deal happened with the Yellow Cake fiasco, shortly after the anonymous briefing Blair stood at the podium and quoted it as Gospel Truth. Well blow me, he's done just that again...
<snip>...

My apologies if you interpreted my post as saying the Iranian gov't is necessarily involved in what I mentioned. That was not my intent, but I do see how it could have been read as such placed in the context of Blair's statements. Of course I wouldn't have proof of that. I was simply refering to Iranian NATIONALS, some of whom have been publicly quite vocal on the subject. Do a quick google search on something like "Iranian suicide brigade" and you'll turn up several things like the article below. I'm not even judging their emotions on the subject, just simply saying they exist in droves. It is very reasonable to expect some (many) of them have found their way into Iraq to fulfill their wishes.

I'm quite familiar with the geography of the area, thanks. And regarding Carrera's suggestion about how things have occured, I don't pretend to be "in the loop" on much more than a small fraction of what really happens, but I will say this. I have spent quite a bit of time piloting military aircraft in the vicinity of the Iraq/Iran border - both during the invasion and for a long time afterward. We always took the UTMOST care to stay proper distances away from that border in order to avoid even the perception that we may have been encroaching on it.

Iranian Suicide Brigade Gains Ground, 15,000 RECRUITS REPORTEDLY WAITING TO RID MIDEAST OF U.S. INFLUENCE
Knight Ridder, By Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson

June 11, 2004
TEHRAN, Iran - Twenty-five years ago, Forooz Rejaeifar was a university student trying to force America out of the Middle East by taking hostages at the U.S. Embassy here. Now, the 47-year-old mother of three is organizing an Iranian suicide brigade to achieve that same goal. For now, her group is mostly a paper exercise with as many as 15,000 volunteers but no money and weapons, said Rejaeifar, a former newspaper publisher who heads the group. Citing privacy issues, she declined to provide any recruits to be interviewed. She said those deemed fit would be trained for one of three missions: killing members of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, slaughtering Israelis (all are deemed ``occupiers of Palestine,'' according to official Iranian policy) or assassinating author Salman Rushdie. The late Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini sentenced Rushdie to death in absentia in 1989 on charges that he blasphemed in his novel ``The Satanic Verses.''No training or missions are planned for the foreseeable future, Rejaeifar said, adding that she hopes the shock value of her brigade will be enough to send the Bush administration and its allies packing.

 

[roadhog]

And here is another, perhaps better example. This article includes the suggestion that the movement is backed by the Iranian gov't. Of course this is not proof of anything, and perhaps it is not even credible at all. I don't pretend to know, but I do think that it is within reason. Text follows...

Iran: Campaign to Recruit Suicide Bombers Spreading

July 02, 2004
BBC Monitoring
BBC Monitoring Middle East

"It is a short distance to Karbala" ... "registration for martyrdom operations."
Photooster appearing at Shiraz University campus by www.peiknet.com

Iranian domestic media and opposition websites have provided new details about Iran's ongoing campaign to recruit suicide bombers and have suggested the campaign is spreading throughout the country. Media have also reported statements by Iran's leaders encouraging the suicide bomber campaign.

On 9 June, the weekly Ya Lesarat , the organ of the Iranian Ansar-e Hizballah [supporters of Hizballah], published an extensive report on the 2 June meeting organized by the General Staff for Glorification of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign to recruit "martyrdom seekers."

According to the weekly, a Majlis deputy from Tehran, Mehdi Kuchekzadeh, spoke on the martyrdom culture and "declared his readiness to become a martyr seeker."

The paper said General Salami, deputy commander of operations at the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) Joint Chiefs of Staff Headquarters, appeared in full military uniform. He declared that the "Global Arrogance [the US and its allies] would come to its knees in the face of martyrdom operations, despite its technological superiority."

Ya Lesarat also reported that "charismatic" speaker Hasan 'Abbasi, the director of the Centre for Doctrinal Studies of Security Across Frontiers, an IRGC Imam Hussein University institution, gave the "most effective" presentation. According to the weekly, 'Abbasi said: "The West needs to know that we cannot stop our youth, and there will remain no security for the Jewish and Christian worlds . . . We will not and cannot stop the disruption of the present order." Before his departure, Dr. 'Abbasi "filled out the form to become a martyr."

Ya Lesarat also reported that IRGC General Sa'id Qasemi and Hojjat ol-Eslam Hamid Sabzevari addressed the gathering. Sabzevari spoke on the "religious basis and justification for seeking martyrdom." In addition, the weekly interviewed Mohammad 'Ali Samadi, an organizer of the campaign, who characterized the campaign as "global" in nature, embracing "all Islamic movements and both Shia and Sunni Muslims," and identified the "US, Israel, and their lackeys" as the targets of the "martyrs."

The 9 June Ya Lesarat also carried an interview with Mrs. Foruz Raja'eifar, the director of the recruitment campaign. A former US Embassy hostage taker, Raja'eifar stressed that "through this event, we are sending a message both to the Islamic world and its enemies." Raja'eifar is the editor of the hardline publication Sobhe-e Dukoheh , directed by the prominent Iranian Hizballah figure Masoud Dehnamaki. Raja'eifar had also expounded on the campaign in a 2 June interview with Hamshahri, the daily of Tehran Municipality. In that interview, she stressed the need to "adopt martyrdom-seeking as a strategic struggle, educate the Iranian youth until it becomes a fundamental cultural movement, and defend its religious and legal basis." She added that martyrs "don't lose anything but gain God's Paradise and eternal joy."

ILNA also carried a report on the 2 June meeting, pointing out that IRGC deputy commander Salami spoke on "martyrdom and military and security strategies," while Hasan 'Abbasi addressed "martyrdom as the last weapon." It also reported the presence of IRGC General Sa'id Qasemi (4 June).

Media Report Campaign Spreading

Since the 2 June meeting, Iranian media and opposition websites have offered further insights into the campaign to recruit suicide bombers. According to the opposition website R ouydad , located at www.rouydad.info , the General Staff for Glorification of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign issued a statement on 18 June declaring that they are ready to move like "burning arrows targeting the heart of Americans." The statement added that "Iranian Muslim youth have their own special method to respond to the enemy."

The opposition website Peiknet suggested that posters for the campaign, which it said "involves the Basij and Hizballah elements," have been appearing at Shiraz University campus. The posters announce a campaign to recruit bombers by the Basij forces, headed by an individual named Puryazdanparast ( www.peiknet.com, 23 June). The poster reads: "It is a short distance to Karbala" and "registration for martyrdom operations." Pictures of President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Sharon are featured on the poster.

Opposition websites are carrying the application to register to become a suicide bomber. The application provides options for attacking Coalition forces in Iraq, Israel, and author Salman Rushdi, condemned to death by Imam Khomeyni in 1989 for writing Satanic Verses. The first reference to the General Staff for Glorification of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign was observed in February when, according to the daily Jomhuri-ye Eslami , the group offered a ,000 reward for the "killing of British novelist Salman Rushdi" (16 February).

Leaders Support Suicide Bomber Campaign

Opposition websites have also reported Iranian leadership support for the campaign.

-- The Gooya news website reported that Hashemi-Rafsanjani spoke about "the capacity and preparation of mosques for organizing Kafanpushan [literally shroud wearers, those ready to be martyred]" at the same meeting where a member of the General Staff for Glorification of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign "referred to the Japanese kamikaze during WWII and stressed that they should have targeted the civilians" ( www.gooya.com, 22 June).

-- The opposition website Peiknet reported on 8 June that Mayor of Tehran Ahmadinejad is one of the principal forces behind the campaign. [In recent weeks, a number of conservative dailies, including Resalat , have been widely promoting Ahmadinejad as the next President of Iran.]

-- Reporting on the suicide bomber recruitment campaign, the Rouydad website wrote that "Mohammad Mohammadi Golpaygani, the chief of staff of Leader Khamene'i, declared at a mosque in the western Province of Ilam that the Leader has soldiers in the four corners of the Earth who are ready to sacrifice their lives for him, and some of them live in the United States" ( www.rouydad.info , 14 June).

In an unusual move, the 13 June Keyhan , the hardline semi-official daily directed by Hussein Shariatmadari, representative of Leader Khamene'i, carried an unsigned editorial which called for a decisive stance against the West, similar to "Imam Khomeyni's handling of the Salman Rushdi affair." It added, "It is not right to think of defense and ignore operating deep in their land . . . and waging Islamic resistance." The editorial stressed that "we need to make them understand that we can disrupt their security, not necessarily with military action but with Basij [mobilization but also a reference to the Islamic militia in Iran] and concentrated effort . . . we can challenge them deep in their homeland." Encouraging action on the part of the "lovers of Velayat [Leader Khamene'i]," Keyhan urged them to get their cue from "his hints" [eshareh: love-glance] and not wait for his orders and "assignment of duties to the detriment of the religion, nation, and country." [Editorials in Kehyan are usually signed by Hussein Shariatmadari or his deputies.]

Source: Iran press review from BBC Monitoring in English 30 Jun 04

 

[darkboong]

My apologies if you interpreted my post as saying the Iranian gov't is necessarily involved in what I mentioned.

Fair enough.

Now, the 47-year-old mother of three is organizing an Iranian suicide brigade to achieve that same goal. For now, her group is mostly a paper exercise with as many as 15,000 volunteers but no money and weapons, said Rejaeifar, a former newspaper publisher who heads the group.

That article smells... Did Knight Ridder ever retract their WMD, Yellow Cake or Aluminium Tube stories (AFAIK they never did - but perhaps that is because they buried the retractions someplace people never looked) ? I am surprised that they even published such a dangerous story with such weak background... No corroborating sources, no mention of any sources at all in fact. Can you *honestly* believe that Iran would permit such a flappy mouthed loon to exist given their situation ?

For the record I can't find *any* record of that woman's existance beyond that Knight Ridder article. Knight Ridder have already published erroneous US Administration propaganda *without retraction*. This article does not have a single independant source to back it up. For that reason it appears that this story is low-grade propaganda designed to stoke up a bit of fear and anger with respect to Iran. If you can find references to this *very* high profile woman existing before that article was written, I would like to see them.

 

[darkboong]

For the record I can't find *any* record of that woman's existance beyond that Knight Ridder article.

That BBC article that roadhog posted covers the lassie, but the date is a few weeks after her debut in the Knight Ridder article. I am still struggling to find other references to her. If she is the real McCoy clearly there should be more references.

It is interesting that opposition parties have claimed their *opposite* numbers
endorse suicide attacks on Iran, as though it's a bad thing.

 

[Carrera]

One or two interesting questions arise from this issue. The first impression I get is Blair won't simply announce any plan to invade Iraq with the usual excuse of "bringing freedom and democracy" to the region. If he does that, the street protests will be on a massive scale. Instead, Blair will be given some kind of pretext to sell the war and that will involve some case being made that Iran has been attacking U.K. troops and supplying arms within Iraq. That will give Bush the excuse to carry out some kind of air strike within Iran. In such a case Iran will probably retaliate and we'll be back to the old Iraq scenario.
One thing is clear, though: Iran doesn't represent the disorganised, sanction-starved terrain that made up Iraq when the U.S. attacked it. There will be some heavy resistance and it could trigger a full scale Middle East war on this occasion. That could involve Israel too.
Another thing also remains obvious. Bush has made a very good job of turning a war against terrorism into a war against the Islamic world as a whole. The only historical precedent is the Roman State's attempt to extinguish Christianity which had a knock-on-effect of spreading Christianity throughout entire continents and making it far stronger. My guess is that Bush's legacy will drag us into a situation where terrorist attacks could become as common in major western cities as they are in Telaviv. The more he destabilises the Middle East and refugees pour into the west and Europe, the more enemies Bush will have in the future.
The surviving sons and generations of those killed by Bush's bombs in Iraq will one day grow up to boost the ranks of Al Quaida. Worryingly, we have a situation now where fanatics based in the U.K. and Europe can travel to Iraq, have real experience fighting American troops and undergoing some kind of training, then returning to Europe to form sleeper cells.
So, I think Blair's decision to agree to Bush's attack of Iran will drag us ever further into the mire.

 

[darkboong]

One or two interesting questions arise from this issue. The first impression I get is Blair won't simply announce any plan to invade Iraq with the usual excuse of "bringing freedom and democracy" to the region. If he does that, the street protests will be on a massive scale. Instead, Blair will be given some kind of pretext to sell the war and that will involve some case being made that Iran has been attacking U.K. troops and supplying arms within Iraq.

The problem with that line of attack is that our troops should not be there in the first place, regardless of who is attacking them. If Blair has a problem with that he should remove the troops that are deployed in direct conflict with the UN's charter.

Blair has never made a single rational argument for the attacks and occupation
of Iraq and Afghanistan. He has made plenty of emotive rants, and on the rare occasions he did make rational arguments he based them on fabrications that *he himself* knew to be fabrications. There is no evidence whatsoever that Blair believes his actions to be legitimate, quite the contrary in fact.

Blair's bluster and systematic destruction of civil liberty and suppression of public, government and party dissent strongly indicate that he understands that his actions are illegitimate so he is resorting to brute force to back them up instead. The longer Blair continues this irrational course the more alienated he will feel, and the harder he will try to destroy any obstacle in his path.

He knows full well he is in the wrong, the question is : why is he doing it ? Is it simply an ego trip for him, or is he being coerced ? I can't imagine what could motivate someone to inflict death and destruction on thousands of people. I wonder if Blair sees the victims as human beings or cattle. The way he behaves indicates that he considers his ideas and needs to be more important than people.

 

[Wurm]

He knows full well he is in the wrong, the question is : why is he doing it ? Is it simply an ego trip for him, or is he being coerced ?

I think you will find that Blair's motivations are linked with Bush's: Blair hopes to get a piece of the Iraqi oil pie. By allying himself with the Neo Con cause, he puts England in a better position to take whatever crumbs the Bush junta wishes to throw its way.

I am sure that Blair is very aware of the implications of the coming of Peak Oil, and hence his giving so much importance to the Iraq invasion/occupation.

 

[darkboong]

I think you will find that Blair's motivations are linked with Bush's: Blair hopes to get a piece of the Iraqi oil pie. By allying himself with the Neo Con cause, he puts England in a better position to take whatever crumbs the Bush junta wishes to throw its way.

I don't think Blair is that stupid, that is why I am inclined to think he is being driven to do this somehow.

I am sure that Blair is very aware of the implications of the coming of Peak Oil, and hence his giving so much importance to the Iraq invasion/occupation.

Blair has no reason to expect America to grant the UK any priveledges with respect to oil. UK companies didn't get a sniff of the supposed reconstruction programme, which was one of the promises the Bush Administration made to prospective coalition partners.

I am certain this is to do with oil, I'm not convinced it is to do with peak oil. I am inclined to think that it has something to do with a more immediate threat to oil production.

 

[Wurm]

darkboong -

Although there is a different leadership in the US and Britain now, it was the case with the overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran in 1953. He & England were out, the Shah & America was in. America ended up giving something like 20% of the oil production to UK, and the Brits didn't have one thing they could do about it.

Things are obviously much different with the Iraq situation today than Iran 52 years ago. However, I do think Britain is in Iraq for whatever eventual share of Iraq's oil they can acquire, as well as a semi-permanent military presence in the region.

 

[Carrera]

Darkboong, the answer to your question stretches back to the cold war. After the second world war and Soviet occupation of East Berlin, the U.K. had dramatically declined as a world power and became more reliant on the U.S.A. So, our defence policy became wrapped up with the U.S.
In more modern times, this has extended to our status as a virtual U.S. state. If you study the papers and news, you'll notice how many policies are implemented after one or other of the parties has made a trip to the U.S. to see how things are done. Take the welfare to work policy as just one example.
That applies, of course, to the whole diversity policy, political correctness and even education. Essentially, the idea of making the U.K. multicultural and encouraging mass immigration was promoted in the U.S. Now it is being promoted in Europe as well, through European policy. However, none of this applies to France since France doesn't depend on the U.S. for defence and France has its own economic model it follows.
It boils down to social engineering but my point all along is you can't apply U.S. policies to countries that might be totally different than the U.S.
Now, look at Iraq. There was never any ethnic conflict in Iraq under Saddam but the Bush Administration has been applying U.S. policy and norms in a country that is ancient in its cultural history. For the first time, Iraqis are conscious of their ethnic diversity and some infighting has broken out.
So my point is the diversity agenda and welfare to work programs may well function O.K. in the U.S. but that doesn't mean it would function in China or Japan or anywhere else.
As to the war, it was simply a case of Blair being given his orders. I don't care whether Blair, Clark or Kennedy get into office in the next election but what I do know is that social/political policy will simply be conveyed via the U.S. I've always opposed this line since it has nothing to do with democracy and you can't apply policies used in a massive series of states across the Atlantic to a tiny island situated next to Europe. So, I think we need multiple party democracy and some grass roots movement over here. Blair simply does as he's told and pretends to himself it's he who plays a role in the Middle East and seeks to transform the world.

I don't think Blair is that stupid, that is why I am inclined to think he is being driven to do this somehow.



Blair has no reason to expect America to grant the UK any priveledges with respect to oil. UK companies didn't get a sniff of the supposed reconstruction programme, which was one of the promises the Bush Administration made to prospective coalition partners.

I am certain this is to do with oil, I'm not convinced it is to do with peak oil. I am inclined to think that it has something to do with a more immediate threat to oil production.

 

[Carrera]

The French have been rubbing Blair's nose in it, to be honest. They reiterate that Blair has gained zilch from his blind support of the Iraq war. The truth is Blair has gained nothing from this illegal war that had no U.N. support.
One political writer I always tend to agree with is French journalist called Marc Roche of LeMond. He often appears on Dateline London on the BBC. Here is how he sees Blair's situation:

"Having a different view from the US does not mean opposing the US. Far from responding with kneejerk anti-Americanism, Mr Chirac is a great fan of the American way of life. After September 11, he was the first world leader to visit the US to pay his respects (well before Blair, who has clearly never forgiven him for it).

But it must be tough for Mr Blair, who constantly claims a religious and moral supremacy, to see that on the question of Iraq, it is President Chirac who has emerged as the moral authority on the world stage.

The French president's desire for a peaceful solution surely gives him the moral high ground against the Anglo-American warmongers. And it must be frustrating for Mr Blair to see that it is Mr Chirac who reflects and represents the large anti-war sentiment in Britain, particularly within his own party.

Let's be clear: Mr Chirac does not endorse Baghdad, and he finds Saddam's regime as despicable as do Bush and Blair. But he fears the American hawks will ignite Muslim fundamentalism worldwide. The fear of domestic conflagration and terrorism are also ever-present: there are 6 million French Muslims to take into account.

Mr Chirac is viscerally opposed to the idea of a clash of civilisations. Bush's core support, on the other hand, comes from evangelical Protestantism, with its two faces of intolerance and lack of cultural understanding.

Disappointment with Blair's obstinacy on Iraq and at these ugly verbal attacks cut deeply with the French public. When he came to power in 1997, Blair was welcomed by Chirac as a Francophile after two decades of "little Englander" Conservative government.

He promised to put Britain at the centre of Europe. He is a brave supporter of the euro, in the face of petty British nationalism. Until Iraq, he seemed to play a constructive European role. So why has he decided to turn on France ? Whatever the desperate reasons, the result is disastrous. Europe, like Britain, is divided as never before, into two irreconcilable camps.

Today, common European policy is in tatters. How will it fare with new members from the east who are in the thrall of Washington? The referendum on the euro seems to have been postponed indefinitely.

However it all ends, this row will leave marks. A healthy rivalry between France and Britain has turned ugly, as if, from the British side, hundreds of years of war are still not over. Maybe it is sour grapes: according to the latest statistics, France is poised to overtake Britain in the ranks of the largest economies.

Toyota believes the workforce in Derby is not as productive as in Valenciennes. The Central [tube] line, which I use, is still not working, the hospital waiting lists are fiddled and the class divisions in Labour's Britain are as bad as ever.

Instead of hurling abuse at the French and spending billions on a war, maybe Mr Blair should try to sort out public services. After all, Monsieur Blair, that is what you were re-elected for, not to destroy the entente cordiale.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Marc Roche is a London correspondent for Le Monde"

darkboong -

Although there is a different leadership in the US and Britain now, it was the case with the overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran in 1953. He & England were out, the Shah & America was in. America ended up giving something like 20% of the oil production to UK, and the Brits didn't have one thing they could do about it.

Things are obviously much different with the Iraq situation today than Iran 52 years ago. However, I do think Britain is in Iraq for whatever eventual share of Iraq's oil they can acquire, as well as a semi-permanent military presence in the region.

 

[darkboong]

darkboong -
Things are obviously much different with the Iraq situation today than Iran 52 years ago. However, I do think Britain is in Iraq for whatever eventual share of Iraq's oil they can acquire, as well as a semi-permanent military presence in the region.

Not *that* much different. The fundamental situation remains the same : Blairs get's no guarantees from the US, nothing up front, and he gets repeatedly kicked in the teeth. The questions is *why* does he persist in getting kicked in the teeth ?

Blair is somewhat unique in his overt subservience. Former PM's have displayed more signs or free-thinking (although the actual *facts* speak differently).

 

[darkboong]

As to the war, it was simply a case of Blair being given his orders. I don't care whether Blair, Clark or Kennedy get into office in the next election but what I do
know is that social/political policy will simply be conveyed via the U.S. I've

I don't buy that for a minute. Blair is acting like a man who is over a barrel, it stinks of coercion. It is remotely possible that I may actually feel sorry for Blair or even see his way of thinking if he presented the *real* reasons behind his course of actions. That is not likely though, he is super-aggressive in his defence of his actions, he has declared that the course of action is right because *he* says it's right. He reminds me of one of the Berkhoff characture of ******. That ain't the persona of an intelligent rational politican, that is the persona of a broken man. Broken in the sense of acting against his every human instinct.

I sincerely hope that Blair is in that position and I sincerely hope that he will spill the beans on what is driving him to Rieve. If the man is Rieving of his own free will, he is a monster and me must pray for a Beowulf.

 

[Wurm]

Instead of hurling abuse at the French and spending billions on a war, maybe Mr Blair should try to sort out public services. After all, Monsieur Blair, that is what you were re-elected for, not to destroy the entente cordiale.

It's a funny thing to watch: every time I tune in to "Prime Minister's Questions" in the House of Commons on CSPAN, Blair gets up and gives a pretty good accounting of his gov't. Maybe the Tories & Lib. Dems aren't as slick at public oratory as the PM? Listening to Blair, you would think that most things in the UK are peachy.

 

[Wurm]

Not *that* much different. The fundamental situation remains the same : Blairs get's no guarantees from the US, nothing up front, and he gets repeatedly kicked in the teeth. The questions is *why* does he persist in getting kicked in the teeth ?

Well, I think the oil situation has yet to be played out, because for one thing, they can't even secure the wells and pipelines for long enough to see decent production.

When oil/gas really starts to get scarce and unsustainably expensive, things will get whippy and these pukes will show their true mettle.

 

[Carrera]

It's more likely Blair is a weak leader who leads a pretty wishy washy government.
What has Blair ever done for the working man that wasn't forced on him from Europe? The minimum wage, for example, was basically pushed by the Europeans for years. He's also got us half-way in Europe so he can accept many of the negatives and deny people the positives such as higher welfare, pensions and free higher education.
O.K., I'm aware Blair tries to act within the boundaries of alliances. Had Blair simply explained he was supporting the Iraq war as he considered we need to form part of this particular alliance, I'd have been more understanding. But Blair basically seemed to take delight in his role of errand boy who was forever telling tales on Saddam Hussein and ganging up on the Iraqis. He somehow reminded me of the typical schoolboy sneak who goes running around the corridors canting tales and grinning when someone gets into trouble.
Blair has basically been duping the public for years and using all his skills as a trained lawyer to hoodwink the electorate. He's lied about unemployment, the economy, crime, (the number of people in prison since he came to power), fundamental issues such as going to war and much more. His wife has also made a fortune out of human rights yet she was on the phone during the Iraq crisis, trying to urge European leaders to come out in support of the war and back a U.N. mandate.
This is a government that locks up people without trial, endorses the idea of several bullets being pumped into someone's head on the subway and imprisons old people for not paying taxes they can't afford.
And if you don't agree with it they hire bruisers to throw you out of parliament (even if you happen to be in your eighties).
So, I remain distinctly unimpressed by Blair's record.

I don't buy that for a minute. Blair is acting like a man who is over a barrel, it stinks of coercion. It is remotely possible that I may actually feel sorry for Blair or even see his way of thinking if he presented the *real* reasons behind his course of actions. That is not likely though, he is super-aggressive in his defence of his actions, he has declared that the course of action is right because *he* says it's right. He reminds me of one of the Berkhoff characture of ******. That ain't the persona of an intelligent rational politican, that is the persona of a broken man. Broken in the sense of acting against his every human instinct.

I sincerely hope that Blair is in that position and I sincerely hope that he will spill the beans on what is driving him to Rieve. If the man is Rieving of his own free will, he is a monster and me must pray for a Beowulf.

 

[wolfix]

Now, look at Iraq. There was never any ethnic conflict in Iraq under Saddam but the Bush Administration has been applying U.S. policy and norms in a country that is ancient in its cultural history. For the first time, Iraqis are conscious of their ethnic diversity and some infighting has broken out.

Wouldn't gassing the Kurds be considered a slight "ethnic conflict?" Give the people of Iraq some credit..... They have been concious of their ethnic diversity for many years. Saddam just ruled in such a way that "infighting" was considered a capitol crime.