I wouldn't rule out atatcking Iran, says Tory leader Cameron

[Blackleaf]

I wouldn't rule out attack on Iran, says Cameron


By MATTHEW HICKLEY and JANE MERRICK
23rd May 2007

Britain could face war with Iran under David Cameron



Britain would be prepared to back military strikes against Iran if David Cameron becomes Prime Minister.

The Conservative leader yesterday accused former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of diplomatic blundering when he ruled out the use of force against Tehran, and called for much tougher diplomacy to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.

His tough rhetoric came as British Army officers in Afghanistan said they were now fighting an "undeclared war" against Iranian-backed militias, supplied with increasingly deadly weaponry from across the border.

And security analysts said Iranian spies have been carrying out reconnaissance trips at nuclear power stations in Europe - apparently planning revenge terror attacks in case the West tries to disable Iran's own nuclear facilities.

Intelligence sources said security has been stepped up around key British sites in response, including critical oil and gas terminals.

Concerns have grown in recent months over the flow of deadly weaponry being supplied from Iran to insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr Cameron yesterday demanded tougher UN and European-Union sanctions to force Tehran to halt its nuclear weapons programme.

If Iran fails to comply, he said, a Tory government would back Washington in strikes against the rogue state.

He said: "I think [US Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice is right to say it is not on the agenda, but I think Jack Straw was wrong to rule it completely out of order.

"I don't think it is ever sensible in international affairs to rule things completely out and I wouldn't take that path."

He said it would be a "calamity" if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, adding: "Make no mistake: The threat is growing. The scale and urgency of our response needs to match it." '

Mr Cameron and Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain should spearhead a "rapid" shift in policy on Iran by using its influence in the EU, UN and with the U.S. to beef up "weak" sanctions.

Tory MP and former infantry commander Patrick Mercer yesterday revealed a recent email from a friend serving in southern Afghanistan, stating: "We are fighting an undeclared war over here against Iranian-backed militias."

And Army sources claimed members of Iran's fanatical Revolutionary Guard are supplying the Taliban with Soviet-designed SA-7 Strela surface to air missiles, capable of shooting down helicopters on which UK forces in Afghanistan rely heavily.

UK troops are being attacked with more sophisticated RPG-29 anti-tank rockets which carry warheads designed to cut through the best tank armour, as well as increasingly powerful roadside bombs which produce a rod of molten metal capable of slicing through thick steel armour.

Addressing a security briefing at the Commons, Mr Mercer said: "These are not improvised bombs knocked up in a back shed. They are factory-grade weapons being manufactured and used with considerable expertise, to devastating effect."

The Queen's Royal Lancers

In an attack in April on UK forces in Iraq's Maysan Province, insurgents staged an elaborate ambush with more than 40 of these bombs, Mr Mercer said, killing two men from the Queen's Royal Lancers.

dailymail.co.uk

 

[Liberalman]

If they can’t win against Iraq then they are going to get slaughtered by Iran.

What I mean is that the initial invasion of Iran will have a lot more resistance than Iraq.

First in Iran there was never a push for them to disarm themselves for ten years as there was in Iraq.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060413-iran-military.htm

Iran is a bigger country and has been planning for this invasion of their country for years.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=25


This simply means that any country that invades Iran will be looking at major casualties and a lot of voters will not approve.

With the Democrats controlling the purse strings of the mighty military machine in America this means that U.S.will not come on board to assist the British in this decision.


And David Cameron
should remember that Britain’s existence would have been a lot different if America did not enter WW2.

 

[mabudon]

I know I'd sleep a lot better at night if nuclear armageddon could happen sometime soon. Sounds like the US is not the only country full of cowboys and frontier justice anymore. Good thing it's so far away, I guess, cos when/if the "attack Iran" stupidity solidifies the S%*T is gonna hit the fan and splatter pretty far and wide

 

[Karlin]

Bush authorises CIA to destabilise Iranian government

Bush Authorizes CIA in New Covert Action Against Iran
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

It is with great shame that I see Canadian troops and government involved with the Bush crimes.

Today, our own PM Harper tells Canadians that he intends to keep our military in Afghanistan "until the Taliban is defeated", which is code for "permanent occupation". With Pakistan allowing Taliban to hide out in it's remote highlands bordering Afghanistan it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually "defeat" them ; we know that and Harper knows that, but he still tell us this lie and our media faithfully presents it like it is based in reality.

This dovetails nicely to the 'secret news' getting out today that Bush has authorised the CIA to do "covert activities" within Iran to destabilise the Iranian government - in preparation for "permanent occupation by American forces".

Destabilising governments in foreign nations is a speciality of the CIA, even some democratically elected governments - Bolivia's 1980 'cocaine coup' was one [but it was a socialist government they elected], plus Nicaragua, Chile, and the many attempts to destabilise Cuba, plus dozens of others around the world in the past 50 years. The leaders they have put into power in those nations have been amongst the most barbaric ruthless inhumane people on earth.

This is the game being played where Arab oil resources are deemed essential to every nation of earth. Its not true, but it does create an ideal battlefield. Islamophobia is part of the propoganda to hide this fact, and to create the necessary enemy of America.


To twist things a little further, we have an ABC News report detailing "U.S. and Pakistani support for an Iranian tribal militant group working to destabilize its country's government". We cannot be sure what loyalties the Pakistani government has, but it appears to be supporting the Afghan Taliban resistance one the one side, but on the other hand is willing to help Bush by destabilising the current Iranian adminstration. The two might not be opposites - sheltering the Taliban gives humps like PM Harper an excuse to keep military in Afghanistan, and destabilising Iran is part of that larger plan [to control Arab oil and gas resources].

Domestically, the news is well received by the public, glad to hear that Iran will be controlled soon, and happy to see a commitment to Afghanistan.

What the public does not seem to grasp is that the "oil wars" do not need to happen at all - we could solve global warming and erase the need to secure Arab oil resources by embracing alternatives to fossil fuels, a movement which is being utterly squashed by the Harper and Bush adminstrations despite their media announcements that gives us the opposite impression.

The oil wars are not benfitting the average person, the majority of Canadians or Americans, but are of benefit only to the elite wealthy people - less than 5% of the population. The USA money being spent on oil wars could have been used to build all new schools in the USA, and give every person free health care, plus protecting infrastructure from future extreme weather events, and would also cover the costs of implementing a zero-carbon energy industry. I am sure that most people would choose those social improvements over making huge profits for the pentagon contractors.

 

[DurkaDurka]

If they can’t win against Iraq then they are going to get slaughtered by Iran.

What I mean is that the initial invasion of Iran will have a lot more resistance than Iraq.

Who says the US or Britain would need to invade Iran? They can bomb Iran from the sky with impunity more or less.

 

[gopher]

It is time to end British and USA imperialism.