Thread: Bush gets new poodle

I suppose it was inevitable

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 9:40am BST 07/10/2007

Gordon Brown has agreed to support US air strikes against Iran if the Islamic republic orchestrates large-scale attacks by militants against British or American forces in Iraq, according to senior Pentagon officials.

Frontline: Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
Washington sources say the Prime Minister has been informed of US plans to launch limited air and special forces raids against Revolutionary Guard bases.

After talks with President George W Bush in July, Mr Brown left US officials with the belief that Britain was "on board" for a military response — but only if Iran was proved to be behind a big militant attack or another stunt similar to the kidnapping in March of British sailors.

The US wants Britain's Special Air Service Regiment to take part in special forces raids inside Iran and has requested help from the Royal Navy to combat Iranian retaliation in the Gulf. But no decisions have been made.

Mr Brown made clear to Mr Bush that he would not support a campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and bring about regime change in Teheran.

But Pentagon officials say he did indicate he would be prepared to back strikes in certain circumstances.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former White House intelligence chief in close contact with senior Pentagon officials, said: "The British understand there's a possible need to strike — not strategic bombing of nuclear sites but facilities in Iran in support of Iraqi elements. This understanding was reached shortly after Brown took office."

The threat of action has been passed to the Iranian government and is credited with slowing the flood of Iranian weapons into Iraq.

The suggestion that Mr Brown has discussed air strikes will anger critics who believe Tony Blair was too quick to approve military action against Iraq.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "While we won't comment on the specifics of conversations between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, this is not a version of events we recognise."

A source close to Mr Brown said the two had talked about Iran but "we have not had this conversation".

Gordon Brown 'will back air strikes on Iran' - Telegraph

well, i guess since the anglo saxons have been the best at spreading their way of life, this only makes sense.

Yes, Bush has worms in his stomach - every trick should be made to get a reason for war against Iran. I think that this message is to prepare the Americans that a new false flag operation will come soon. US Army will shoot a missile to its own base and accuse the Iranians ... and get approval from people to attack Iran. Bush is sick to this dream - he cannot sleep before this permission is given. It means trillions to the companies owned by the Hawks.

The plans made by Bush to shoot a US missile from southern Iraq to destroy the carrier Enterprise was revealed by some unloyal army generals ... and this orchestration was cancelled. Recently those B52 nuclear bombs were also revealed by insiders - and Bush has a problem - his own staff is telling top secret plans to media - plans to use false flag operations (like 911).

Bush has not yet found a story which could go through among the stupid Americans ... WMDs, maybe Ahmadinejad is a communist, maybe they did 911, maybe they want to destroy USA ... something should be found quickly.

Originally Posted by Chookie

I suppose it was inevitable



Gordon Brown 'will back air strikes on Iran' - Telegraph

I'm not sure why this would translate to being Bush's 'poodle.' If Iran is committing large scale attacks to kill British soldiers, then it is merely defending and protecting Her Majesty's troops and their mission by taking steps to stop them from doing so as described.

Gordon Brown wasn't even elected. It would be the ultimate in contempt for the Brit public to be allied to an illegal war by a cuckoo.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I'm not sure why this would translate to being Bush's 'poodle.' If Iran is committing large scale attacks to kill British soldiers, then it is merely defending and protecting Her Majesty's troops and their mission by taking steps to stop them from doing so as described.

Wouldn't that be negated by how they got there in the first place? You know, the whole war of aggression thing? Occupiers claiming to be victims in order to attack another nation is quite a stretch.

Originally Posted by Bullshit

Wouldn't that be negated by how they got there in the first place? You know, the whole war of aggression thing? Occupiers claiming to be victims in order to attack another nation is quite a stretch.

Not at all in my view. Whether the ouster of Hussein was legal or not is inapplicable to this issue.

Since the Iraqis were allowed to elect a government of their own and this regime has been accepted as a legitimate government by the global community with UN and international recognition, it is a bona fide regime. That regime consents to and currently desires the British soldiers' presence and the UN has endorsed their presence there for helping the regime and nation stabilise itself. Thus, they are not 'occupiers' under Iraq's domestic law or international law.

Iran is a different nation and if it seeks to infiltrate and kill British soldiers there, it is breaking Iraq's domestic laws and violating international law by committing acts of war upon Iraq and any nation's troops it is attacking there plus violating the domestic, coalition and UN approved mandate of why those troops are there.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I'm not sure why this would translate to being Bush's 'poodle.' If Iran is committing large scale attacks to kill British soldiers, then it is merely defending and protecting Her Majesty's troops and their mission by taking steps to stop them from doing so as described.

And who's word would you be ready to believe saying these 'attack' were 'made in Iran' ...?

Originally Posted by Ainoow

And who's word would you be ready to believe saying these 'attack' were 'made in Iran' ...?

I'd stand to believe anyone who could credibly show Iran was doing it. What Brown said was 'large scale' attacks. If Iran does that, then it shouldn't be that hard to show. I would reasonably study and scrutinise claims to make my own determination whether they are true or not.

O'S B;

Iran is a different nation and if it seeks to infiltrate and kill British soldiers there, it is breaking Iraq's domestic laws and violating international law by committing acts of war upon Iraq and any nation's troops it is attacking there plus violating the domestic, coalition and UN approved mandate of why those troops are there.

That all sounds very righteous and legal if we can somehow skate over America's assistances in the planning and execution of a recent Israeli strike into Syria and last year's full scale war on Lebanon.
UN member States, as far as I'm aware, are forbidden to assist States which are in breach of UN resolutions. Helping them to wage war represents an hypocrisy large and heavy enough to form a landslide which sweeps away any support for attacking Iran on small pretexts, real or imaginary.