this as well?
6 months ago only cranks and conspiracy theorists were predicting the US would attack Iran after the debacle in Iraq. Now I'm hearing credible experts saying an attack is 'probable'.
ARE WE GOING TO BE DRAGGED INTO THIS TO PROVIDE LEGITIMACY FOR US UNILATERAL ACTION AGAIN?
2007-02-12 23:02:34 · 20 answers · asked by James T 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
After the political disaster that Blair's behaviour over Iraq has resulted in for him, I think the government will be very wary of standing proud beside the US on this. In the end (knowing their attitude to foreign policy and defense issues), they'll probably send some troops, but they'll play it down, and maybe side a little more with the French and Germans, who I imagine will be slower to get involved, if they do at all.
2007-02-12 23:21:19 · answer #1 · answered by stuffnstuff 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think we will attack Iran-the British army is stretched thin enough at the moment. We have troops is Iraq and Afghanistan. To open up a third conflict while these two remain unresolved would be stupid-especially if Iran has a nuclear capability. I think the way forward at the moment is to talk with Iran-it's better than getting into another difficult situation like Iraq or Afghanistan
2007-02-13 01:45:06 · answer #2 · answered by Alex V 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I remember Andy Mcnab- Ex SAS predicting it when being interviewed a good few years back. We all know the 91 gulf war was about the oil and he said Iran will be attacked by the west in a few years (about now) over gas resources. This interview was waaay before Iran got it's nuclear facilities online. been coming for a while. There would be war on them streets here if people were paying £5 a litre petrol...
2007-02-12 23:08:38 · answer #3 · answered by chrisbowe82 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Any action will be all for the help of Israel, as they have the most to worry from a nuclear Iran. for sure this action will be sponsored through the U. S., regardless of if no longer formally.. The humorous aspect will be the region Saudi Arabia performs in the type of flow, with the united kingdom in the midst of a Multi-Billion Pound fingers deal for the hurricane Eurofighter.. i imagine it in all probability that Saudi Arabia ought to turn that is new guns on Israel to shield Iran from Aerial Bombardment.. This easily relies upon if the State has the Eurofigher up and dealing at the same time as the Sh*t hits the fan..
2016-12-04 03:05:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he will, but it is not necessary. America can mop up the same way it did in the former Yugoslavia. All America has to do is destroy Iran's military infrastructure and that does not require British assistance. A war between Iran and the U.S. will be an air war. By all means, stay out of the way.
2007-02-12 23:12:12 · answer #5 · answered by Bud#21 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Blair has done more harm to the credibility of the UK than any of his predecessors - he has certainly made us the USA poodle but, by the time the US decides on extending its Empire or not, Blair will be long gone - as I hope will be all those who voted and held his murky hand.
2007-02-13 03:24:30 · answer #6 · answered by free n' dating 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this my friend is a double edged sword on one side what bush is doing is wrong however new evidence actual evidence shows the high possibilty of a strike by iran on our society so my thoughts would leen toward a premtive strike to ward them off making such a decision as to wheter bushes **** kissing mate blair will drag us in yes he will but with what i dont know.
the guys out in afgan and iraq are already stretched to the limits and desperatley need more reinforcements so how would he be able to man a force to go fight in iran?
as nostrodamus predicted the war in the east will esculate further and further and we can do nothing but watch it happen at bushes war mungering hands
2007-02-12 23:43:30 · answer #7 · answered by francis f 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who are those "credible experts" you refer to? Watch my lips there will be no strikes on Iran unless Iran provokes the situation
2007-02-12 23:19:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blair is hanging on to see the attack through. He is necessary because UK forces will help with the attack and provide back up for the backlash. Despite the whinging of UK citizens, the UK is a criticle partner in the US's global security role and we must stick with it.
2007-02-12 23:41:04 · answer #9 · answered by Bob M 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Probably - but what do you expect from Bush and Blair - they are both from the same mould!
Neither of them will be happy until we have been dragged into World War 3
They are both using it as propoganda to prop up their failing images to their home voters - they still don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that WE the people don't want to be involved in another countries affairs
2007-02-12 23:06:54 · answer #10 · answered by jamand 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋