Blair hints at military action after Iran's 'disgraceful' taunt to Israel

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”.

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?”

Mr Blair said of Iran: “Their attitude towards Israel, their attitude towards terrorism and their attitude towards nuclear weapons is not acceptable. If they continue down this path people are going to believe that they are a real threat to world security and stability.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1846793,00.html

The solution to any problem is war. :eyes: :sarcasm:

It emerged this week that he may be losing his grip on his cabinet - which, considering the fact that it's largely stuffed with allies, is quite something. Maybe they DO have spines.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1601352,00.html

too many of us to allow them to destroy the world at
their own will.

They must be stopped immediately.

Blair has a solid grip on power. However, there are signs this may be weakening at the edges. If Cameron is elected as Tory leader, a stalking horse becomes much more possible. Once that happens, it's downhill for Tony.

We haven't heard much from them lately. What's going on over there?

The president of Iran just declares Israel should be cleaned of the face of the earth, and you say Blair's got an itchy trigger finger?

WOW

He hopes that our pResident and his poodle will go berserk and bomb something. That would spell disaster for the entire world community.

We've seen what happens when Israel takes the gloves off.

I've honorably served my country in the Army. You folks who want to kick Persian Ass, go over in place of my child. All the Way! :(

I also said nothing about me or any other american wanting to kick Persian ass. Where the hell did you get that?

Well, IMO you are TALKING THE TALK. But that's just my opinion. Good Day. :-)

Pat Robertson declared a fatwa against Hugo Chavez and wants to kill the leader of Venezuela. Are you going to start bombing whatever hole in Virginia he lives in?

I always took him as a bible thumping money grubber. I guess you learn something new everyday. Thanks

and the country is just something to be put under the authority of such a leader.

can talk. As it is now, nothing but talk from Iran. This doesn't warrent any bombing or the US can start bombing many countries right now for the words against us.

Russia and China will laugh in your poodle face.

Who licks the hand of his master Chimpy Cokeshrub

before Katrina, et. al. hit? :P

Yip yip yip! <ankle bites galore>

"Search For The Holy Grail"...when someone is taunting you, sometimes it's best to ride away...even if you have to clack coconuts together to do it.

:rofl:

Tony Blair seems desperate to pick a fight with Iran.
Meanwhile, Shrubya marches off to war with Syria.
One blunder at a time guys, please.

to charge into battle. I pray the british will give this idiot the boot soon. Otherwise it is WWIII.

"Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having nuclear weapons?”

Israel. They will make you pay, even if it takes years, they will get the USA to make you pay.

You and what army?

I think it's a pretty big deal to have the elected president of a country say he wanted to wipe another country off the map.

Them's fightin' words.

We wouldn't let the bush get away with that kind of shit, so we shouldn't give Ahmadinejad a pass just because we're not too keen on Israel these days (at least I'm not, anyway).

another Holocaust.

But using this one remark as the pretext for a war would be absurd.

<Iran certainly needs to know that the world will not stand idly>

Remember Mahathir's speech and all outrage against it? Now we know that all these noises were pointless. Mahathir just informed us what is going on in the Muslim world and quietly retired.

Pretty much same thing happens now with Ahmadinejad. He informs, not argues with the West.

But the West isn't going to miss this opportunity to make diplomatic gains. It gives them a strong advantage.

<You're probably right.>

Thanks :-)


<But the West isn't going to miss this opportunity to make diplomatic gains. It gives them a strong advantage.>

To get diplomatic gains, one needs to respect the UN and international law. After IWMD, Oil4Food, raping the NPT (which allows peaceful nuclear programs) and exporting revolution to Syria, there is not much international law to speak of :-(((

Who can forget these fundamental truths about "the Jews":



Promoting human rights and democracy. How offensive! And they had the nerve to actually THINK!!

And just to be on the safe side... :sarcasm:

Check http://www.bernama.com/oicsummit/speechr.php?id=35&cat=BI I don't think it can be reduced to 1-liners.

We did and he has (so far) as has his lapdog.

That being said I think Irans pres is every bit as looney as ours.

mind when Israel says these things. Why is this double standard allowed?

Where have Israeli officials announced they were going to "wipe any Arab country off the map?"

Iran is just posturing. You and I both know Iran does not have the capability to back up such claims.

Isreal is still on my map, and it isnt going anywhere.

What I'm wondering is why there is no Palestine on my map.

Israel has changed the map because of defensive wars and the refusal of other parties of land exchange for peace.

I pray Israel does stay on the map, but I just don't know. The right-wing only wants Jews in Jerusalem and don't give a flip about Israel as a state. The left-wing hates Israel and would only be upset if it was wiped of the map because they'd have no good scapegoat left.

Why is Palestine not on the maps you are looking at? I am not sure. I have seen several that do have it. But, I think the reason most have not been changed is, to my knowledge, the leadership has not officially declared itself a sovereign state.

On edit: You are right that this is nothing more than a "pissing contest," but that kind of rhetoric should not be acceptable, no matter who is saying it.

You know Sharon and Likud lust for a Greater Israel.
You can't have a Greater Israel without wiping
lots of sovereign real estate off the map.

"Posts" can be called "stupid or disingenuous," but not "posters."

You know Sharon and Likud are as loved as Bush and the Republican party. Most of Israelis simply want their nation and stop getting bombed all the damn time.

Ask yourself how much land Israel has kept in its wars? The occupied territories could have been returned quickly (like the Sinai), had peace been established, but alas, that was not others wanted, they wanted ALL of Israel. Before Gaza and the WB were occupied, they were annexed properties of Egypt and Jordan, respectively. Why didn't THEY create the nation of Palestine? They wanted buffers with Israel and don't really give a flip about Palestinians.

an example of the vitriole that is felt by Arab countries against Israel... this guy just openly stated it. Remember the PLO's stated objective of wiping Israel off the map? Same thing. Israel is aggressive, more than some may like, but it is fundamentally to protect itself. And it has reason to be aggressive!

We have every right in the world to hold Bush responsible for the things he says. Tony Blair and the UK have absolutely no right to attack Iran for making such statements. It can tell Iran that any attack on Isreal will be met with British force, that is fine, but preemptive war on Iran would be no less criminal than the Iraq War.

And no, it isnt a big deal that the president of Iran wants Isreal destroyed. That is a dog-bites-man story. Of course he does. But Iran couldnt destroy Isreal in its wildest dreams.

And remember. Tony Blair is a liar. Tony Blair is a criminal. Tony Blair does not object to Iran out of a sincere concern for human life. Those of us who do value all human life should of course find the rhetoric from Iran disgusting but that doesnt mean we have to give any credit to Tony Blair who just happens to be right in the portion of his propaganda where he denounces Iranian rhetoric.

we shouldn't give Ahmadinejad a pass

And who, pray tell, suggested that we give Ahmadinejad a pass? Who would even think to give him a pass?

Now I'm thinking that "stupid should hurt". Somehow, Iran elected a president even dumber than ours. That probably took some serious effort!

Gyre

The fact that Blair, who I find repellent, chastises him is no reason to fail to see the obvious.

:wtf: is this guys major malfunction. He needs to be taken care of by his own people.

I know we created chaos in Iran in the 50's, I know we ignored democratic forces in Iran recently. That does not give this lunatic the right to advocate genocide.

He needs to be removed from office just as Blair and Bush need to be removed.

how can the Labour Party UK put up with such a conservative. His ancestors were conservatives and it appears that HE IS! This is not the real Labour Party!

during the Iranian election that probably helped that idiot get elected. Just what the neocons wanted. A reactionary, idiotic Iranian president who would make blunders just like this and get his country invaded.

It's all part of the game.... ya know?

This whole thing sounds like a set-up by the same people who always benefit from war. Often people who think they are enemies are really working for the same side, and the people at the very top are often playing both sides. One example is bush's grandfather, who made money from both sides in WWII.

Blair was speaking for the European Union and her member states when he made these comments. The text of his speach was agreed by all the heads of state\government at the EU meeting yesterday.

"chomping at the bit" to mix it up militarily with Iran? Oh, this notion slays me. <snicker> Stop! :rofl:

The majority of whom are Shia; but there is a substantial minority of Sunni muslims as well. I would guess that there is the odd Suffi too. Not sure what you meant by that. American frequently mock Europe: whether it is our military prowess; our economy or our anit-semitism. So, you will have to forgive me, I not sure what you meant by your post.

By all accounts the European Three ( France, Germany and the UK ) have been finding negotiations hard going since the installation of Iran's new hardline President. His comments are pretty inflammatory and quite possibly calculated. He certainly seems to have no plans to back down from what he has previously said.

Iran has defended its president's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map", saying this has been its foreign policy since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Ahead of an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki said Iran did not recognise the "illegitimate Zionist regime".

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words provoked international outrage, but Muslim countries have not reacted.

He may be thinking that if, push comes to shove, the Iranian army can inflict a heavy enough defeat on the Ameican army to make them leave the area. Leaving Iran as the sole regional super-power in the middle east.

One of the reasons, invading Iraq was not just a stupid idea in itself, I guess.

I have absolutly no idea what arcane point you are trying to make. Failin an elucidation from yourself hopefully everyone elsecan step in and stop me feeling foolish.

An fair number of the EU's citizens practice Islam, that is true. Those populations, however, would not be able stop the EU going to war with Iran. There may be some resistance from Europe's Shia communities but very little from Europe's Sunni muslims.

And relationships between the EU and Iran are tense since the installation of the new Iranian President. Whilst, the EU is an organisation designed for peace it does has a sphere of influence.

my comments above.

My Points: EU will NOT act militarily against Iran. No. Not ever in any, way, shape or form. Why? Because Europe is way too open and close to "the action." They have no defense although they are not near as SPOOKED by "terrorism" as the US because they have been dealing with it for decades (since the beginning of time).

Also, I don't know many Americans like myself, e.g., no ties to either Judaism NOR Islam, who would be willing to sacrifice their precious CHILDREN as cannon fodder to protect the Theocracy known as Israel.

IF, however, Israel turns 100% secular there will be no problem. Why? Because the government will be representative of THE PEOPLE who live in the region, NOT people of ONE RELIGION.

No, IMO this is END-GATE. No matter how much money Israel has to lobby in the USA, the military will not be able to recruit the cannon fodder of American Kids to die for the Theocracy of Israel.

Again, I have no ancestral ties to either the Jewish or Arab world, nor either religion. I'm Catholic (don't start - lean Franciscan in practice of my faith). Therefore, I wish that Israel would "wake up" and turn their country into a secular state.

Unfortunately the USA and Britain will fight militarily for Israel. The thuggish leaders who are true Zionists have slaughtered far too many Palestinians for me to be willing to sacrifice my child for their continued RELIGIOUS STATE.

Welcome to the beginning of WWIII if we keep the Neo-Cons in charge of OUR Country. :cry:

and I disagree with you. Europeans are quite willing to use their militaries to achieve their strategic aims. Iran is a lot closer to Europe that it is to America and an escalation of this kind of language will have a direct impact on Europe's material well-being.

The US Army bogged down in Iraq; it's leaders weakened by corruption scandals of their own making; it's inteligence services are demolarised; and it's economy is heavily in debt to enemy powers.

All in all, things could be better.

No you got me there, I have relatives living in Britain and my best friend is a French Citizen, but no living relatives within Europe. No, I would bet money that NOT ONE country will vote to go to war with Iran. The cause is to support a Jewish State. Can we say religious war? Can we say Armageddon? That's bastard leader of Iran is feeling sassy. Bush and his buds should go live over in Iran ... especially since the "hard liners" of the USA share a lot in common with the thugs running Iran.

My opinion: It's not going to happen: EU taking military action in support of Israel.

I guess time will tell?

Best Regards, EP

The French built the reactor the Israeli's use to produce the raw materials for their nuclear arsenal. The German's refitted Israels submarine fleet so that is was capable of launching a nuclear arsenal. The British build the chemical weapons plant.

If memory serves, 14% of its citizens (Israel proper, not the West Bank or Gaza) are Arab, and they have full citizenship rights. Isreal has human rights including for religion; their tolerance to minority religions (Christianity) isn't up to American standards, but is much better than neighboring countries.

Israel was founded by socialist Zionists, not religious Jews, and Israel is to this day largely secular. (The religious Jewish population tends to be concentrated in Jerusalem; they have a big influence on local politics in Jerusalem.)

But what Israel is, is a Jewish state (ethnic group or race, not religion). I happen for one to think there is a place in this world for a ethnic Jewish state. Given the incredible amount and virulence of anti-Semitic propaganda still in circulation (particularly in Muslim countries), I think the notion that the Jews deserve a national homeland they can defend still has currency.

But I don't think it is our business anymore to support Israel militarily; they can and should take care of themselves now. And of course, what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is wrong: they need to abandon the notion that they can annex these lands. The walls and settlements must go. (Or at least, any wall or barrier must be on Israeli land only.) I think Israel now understands that ultimately there must be two states: The Arab populations in the West Bank and Gaza will soon outnumber the Jewish population in Palestine/Israel.

I just find the ideas difficult to reconcile. I know some European states have formal state churches, but these are historical relics more than anything else.

In principle, I can immigrate to England, without being a member of the Church of England or ethnically English. To immigrate to Israel, I would have to either be Jewish in a religious sense, or at least ethnically Jewish. At any rate, that is my understanding.

Maybe this is a rational response to the history of persecution of the Jews, but it does make it difficult to categorize Israel as a secular western democracy.

Killing innocents for the crimes of a nation's leaders is what got us into Iraq in the first place.

the similar demonstrations of bravado and sheer arrogance that both Bush and Iran's new "hard liner" demonstrate. They're two INSANE peas in a pod ... and THE WORLD is paying the price for the horrific mood-swings of these so-called elected leaders. :(

We are doomed!

I can't figure out why they'd say something so provoking out of nowhere like that. They seem to be looking for trouble.

those asinine statements start *any* military action ... well, can we say open up the gates of Hell? === it will be the end of civilization as we know it. Why? The Persian Army is not composed of pu**ies. They are a formidable force. Casualties the likes ... the horror of what hasn't been seen since WWII. And the beginning of WWIII.

I'm not particularly impressed with the Iranian army. I just think they are playing with fire.

Remember the US military takes alot of people with them even when they "lose". We may have lost 50,000 people in Vietnam, but we took 2 million Vietnamese with us. We may have had two men dragged around in Somalia, but they estimate they took out nearly one thousand Somalis before they were finally overrun.

We have lost 2,000 in Iraq. What are the estimates for Iraqi loses? Over 100,000, I believe.

by the USA to help them with construction projects. YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED BY THE IRANIAN MILITARY. Why? In a number of ways and far beyond Iraq, those serving within the Iranian Military are almost as disciplined and as STRACK as our forces. Don't get me wrong, I've served in, and love the US Army, plus I'm married to a Marine, BUT NEVER underestimate your enemy. :(

as I recall that was a stalemate. The two nations did manage to mangle a lot of people on both sides, though. And that is what concerns me. If Iran wants to provoke and possibly cause lots of deaths, they are on the right track.

All of these foreign entanglements were unnecessary, and your numbers of dead are composed mostly of civilians. Does that make you feel proud to be an American? What a pathetic life you must have if this is a source of pride for you. We invade other countries and kill lots more civilians than we have military KIA. Wooohoooo!! What a pathetic and sad statement. Woohoo - we killed 100k innocents in Iraq!! Yeehahh!!

You don't need to put lose in quotation marks. We did lose. Our Founding Fathers warned us against unnecessary foreign entanglements and they would be ashamed of us now.

I served in the infantry for twelve years (including Somalia and Iraq 1) and have been called back out of the IRR.

Your statement "two men dragged around in Somalia" is sickening. There were 18 Rangers killed in the Mogadishu battle, and I knew some of them. They did not kill 1000 Somalis, much to your chagrin, I'm sure. Another unnecessary military intervention by a Bush.

If you are not impressed with the Iranian military, I think you should join up and help the corporations get even bigger profits.

Who said I was proud? I am worried for massive loss of life on both sides.

that you thought these wars were victories, because of the massive loss of life on the other side.

If this was not your intent, please explain.

Not that I agree with Blair, nor do I agree with the Israeli position on many things, BUT when you shake a saber at somebody, like the Iranian president did, you cannot not expect anybody to balk at it.

We need a lot of good warriors to satisfy your needs.

I'm sure more than a few of you remember Reagan saying that he had "signed legislation outlawing Russia forever ... we begin bombing in five minutes"?

... but that was just a joke, right?

Ha ha.

though somehow I can't see him or Harry getting sent to the front line.

He's as big a shithead as Bush.

That is not even close 2 my question.

Part of his reasoning is honorable, but in large part it is just British self-interest. If fewer countries have nuclear weapons, those that do wield a bigger stick in international affairs.

If Iran did get nuclear weapons it would create a nuclear stalemate in the middle east, the same as the one that has prevailed in the wider world for 60 years. Iran would not "wipe out" Israel any more than the U.S. wiped out the U.S.S.R. or vice versa.

It might well limit the ability of third countries like the U.S. and U.K. to muck around in the middle east, though.

I loved it. Short and to the point

PB

and forget about making Syria safe for Israel. I share none of these goals as formulated by the Bush era neocons, but the Iranian military is not one to mess with because we don't have a military capable of dealing with a force that large, ready and motivated.

All you closet neocon fellow travelers here at DU, wanna see the Iranian Army at the gates of Israel? You'll get it if someone doesn't shut Blair and Bush off.

invade, and almost like he relishes that prospect: smashing the British while their next-door neighbors, Sunni and Shiite, take care of the U.K.'s big, dumb brother in Iraq and Syria. Perfect revenge for occupation, numerous puppet Shahs, Mossadegh, etc., etc....

bring about the situation we have now: hated nearly universally, isolated, nearly spent and bankrupt and with incredible turmoil within.

If you thought invading and occupying Iraq was bad...invading and occupying Iran would be a hell of lot worse! Much larger and more unified country!

Expanding the Iraq war into Iran would truely be taps for a whole American young generation. The reason the Iranian leadership is talking like this now, is that our agressive invasions have put them in the position of CORNERED ANIMALS. We have surrounded them with forces known to be hostile to Iran.

They've been looking for an excuse. This one is as good as any, from the Neocon perspective.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

putting your ass where your mouth is.

In case you haven't noticed, or geography was not your stronger suit in school, any US/UK attack on Iran will start a jihad of the Shias of Iraq against American and British troops.

:)