The Iran Strike

I really don't see how I could perceive the government of the UK as the legitimate ruling body of this country if a strike on Iran were to go ahead. The rule of law, as applied to the government of this nation seems non-existent.

Of course this is going to be the national emergency that the poodle will use as an excuse to suspend the democratic system. Then assuming the position of 'el presidente' that he has duped NuLabor into putting with-in his grasp.
This has been his purpose since John Smith was "disposed of". If it had been easier to achieve thru the Conservative party, we would have seen the poodle taking over from John Major.
Gordimmo will be rewarded with the leadership of the Labour party, but he will still be the bridesmaid.
I've got June pencilled in for this happening, so if you want to take this into account, when planning this year hols?

Re.: "On the other hand, if an attack on Iran goes ahead, Blair will either be immediately removed from office or will be there for a full term."

Given the spinlessness of the Labour party, and the fact that Ahmedinijad is scarcely a poster child for a nice guy, I can't see how Blair would be removed from office. As for the other scenario, how pissed off does he want Brown to be? I'm sure Blair might think he can spin a 'wartime' crisis to justify staying in office - but it would probably destroy labour as a consequence.

There are of course several possible scenarios in the event of strikes against Iran with UK involvement. For a start, it depends a little on how you define involvement. The most likely scenario is that absolutely nothing will change here. The least likely is the one Barnacle Bill keeps banging on about -  a "suspension" of the "democratic process". In any case, given how matters have developed over the last couple of years, one might be justified in wondering excatly how much of the democratic process there is left to be suspended.

1) "Shia militias who are attacking US forces."
2) "But, the US and Saudi Arabia are supporting Sunni forces in Iraq"
3) "Some of the people being funded have deep links to al Qaeda."

Whats this? It certainly doesn't sound like the war in Iraq that I've
reading about. Where are these strange things happening?

I think (and I'm still reading Sy Hersch's article) that the implication is that the US Administration, having realised that they have merely strengthened Iran, are resorting to Plan B, finding some proxy army of hooligans to do their dirty work for them.  Unfortunately, the only people in the Middle East who would like a crack at Iran (apart from Israel, which is Plan A) are broadly sympathetic to al-Qaeda, since they hate Iran.  So do many of the Sunni insurgents and ex-Baathists, of course, and the religious element amongst them have strong links to Saudi Arabia, as do the religious element in, er, the White House.

The main beneficiaries of the 'surge' so far seem to be Sunni extremists, since the heat being turned up on Iran and the Shia miliitia forces the latter to keep a low profile, thus allowing more freedom for attacks on the Shia community.

Basically the US (unless it leaves, which it won't without being thrown out) now has to choose which sworn enemy it wants as an ally - Iran (aka the elected Iraqi government) or al Qaeda-sympathisers.  Currently it seems to be the latter, which goes to show how well the War on Terror and the Freedom Agenda is going.

I have been trying for over 6 months to lay a bet that the Dear Leader will still be enjoying the privileges of Downing Street at Christmas - following some "terrist spectacular"  or some such. The nation needs me,  The great helmsman must stay and steer the ship of state ...and pray who will stop him?

We managed to swap Chamberlain in the middle of a war but can you see these egregious blow hards on the back benches standing up to be counted. Not on your pension / baronetcy M'Lud.

The 1.8Mn who voted against road pricing will be in a for an early bath, you can be sure.

Listen folks you have to understand that a war with Iran has been planned for years.Sept11th was the catalyst.Blair is Bushs whore and will go along with everything Bush tells him.You clowns here are still stupid enough to believe the UK and the US are democracies.I got news for you.They aint.

The Uk wiil play it´s part with the invasion of Iran

I personally think that wiser heads are prevailing in Washington and the US would not be so dumb as to attack Iran or let Israel use Iraqi airspace.

If an attack does happen then the Iranians who have war-gamed this scenario ad nauseum will sink the two carrier groups in a flash, then expect Tehran to become a glass parking lot.  

No way would the UK partecipate in a land invasion of Iran. The UK army is already losing the "war" against the Taliban and slowly losing ground in Southern Iraq.

Iran is something different, apart from the far more varied and difficult terrain, the vastness of the country, the massive population and the reasonably well prepared and equipped armed forces Iran has Shia Islam.

Shia Islam is obsessed with the cult of martyrdom and the death of Imam Hussein, Israel and the US will have kill tens of millions of them before they throw in the towel.

Blair will go, have faith, he will be overtaken by "events".

they may not invade on land but I think they are going to bomb the shit out of it including the use of mini nukes on the Nuclear site for example.To what end may we ask??after they have bombed will they try and roll on in to Theran like they did in Baghdad?whatever the do will be madness.Of corse they US admin and the British government are insane so it all make sense in a way.

Poor strategy and planning from BLiar and Bush. They should have supported Saddam Hussein in another war with Iran, and then got rid of him, duh.

"they may not invade on land but I think they are going to bomb the shit out of it including the use of mini nukes on the Nuclear site for example"

Just for the record, it would be beneficial for all concerned if we stopped using the vernacular coined by these neocon arseholes. There is no such thing as the super-friendly, convenient and harmless 'mini-nuke' - B61 weapons generate a yield 20 times that of Hiroshima, and due to their earth penetration, would also be very, very dirty. The consequences of using these devices should reflect that.

On any even halfways "rational" scenario I should say neither a land invasion nor tactical nukes, but rahter infiltrations by special forces and ordinary bombing.

This would allow Britain to show it has elephant-sized balls by contributing a fw SAS to the good work.

All this unless of course the Israelis take the opportunity to land us all comprehensively in the shit (= a couple of nukes, just to make sure there's no going back for the US and the UK in the Middle East).

The US has attacked Iran, using power and awe. They have removed all known nuclear installations, destroyed the entire economy (aka Lebanon) and rule the world. Tone supported them and sent in token troops, but the army revolted, mass demonstrations on the streets and Tone is arrested and charged as a war criminal.

The American people finally woke up to the fact that Bush is a f%*&#^= idiot and a crook and the Democracts have him impeached.

Then I wake up to find my coffee's cold. Shit!

I wish some posters who recognize that the Cold War was not won by an Alziemer's victim. The clock is ticking and Blair blinked last week when he got wind of Neocon plans. Cheney must be bursting veins without the VIAGRA.

North Korea has just 'won' aid from the USA who effectively pay them not to build nuclear bombs. Iran watched with interest the fact that the loonier and more irresponsible the finger on the trigger could be, the more could be extorted from the rest of the world. Hence Ahmadinejad's fruitloop statements on everything from the holocaust to Israel. The only problem is that the USA would love to rid the world of Kim Jong-Il and his regime but are prevented from doing so by China and the threat of nukes.

They are determined not to have to buy their way out of trouble again. Russia is growing more muscular and in a couple of years may decide to intervene in the middle east again so time is precious. Iran needs to learn fast that nuclear brinkmanship is a very dangerous game and when to back down.

This isn't about political affiliation - who on earth wants a nuclear armed Iran or indeed any other power in the Middle East? Yes we know Israel is nuclear armed but they would only ever use them if any other power in the Middle East got them too. The Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians and Libyans are all in the market for them too.

If Iran is allowed to get nukes, do you think there will be any stopping them? How do you like the idea of Wahabis with nukes? Scares the sh1t out of me.

Sagger5000, you claim that Israel would only ever use its nuclear weapons if some other Middle Eastern state also acquired them.

What is the basis for your optimism?

Blair is Bushs whore and will go along with everything Bush tells him

Some truth in that, but the worst toddler in the world can't throw his toy soldiers around if you take them off him.  The state of the British Army at the moment would preclude anything other than a token role (excluding special forces).  A token role in a country that size isn't worth the effort, and I get the strong impression the propaganda effort against Iran is half-hearted compared with that against Iraq, when it needs to be twice as good if it's going to fool enough people for long enough.  There's no way you can play the 'support the troops now they're in battle' card half way through a war.

I recently heard Shappi Khorsandi, the Iranian comedienne, having some fun at the expense of the Americans. Knowing how easily confused they are by geography, especially the difference between Iraq and Iran, she reminded them that it was easy, really - Iran was the one with the WMD...

Perhaps George should bear that in (what passes for his) mind.