No to war on Iran


the war in Iraq has greatly increased the threat of terrorist attacks in this country and across the world

the dominant power in Iraq is Iran

Iranians have made [the US] look like complete idiots

We must not let Bush wage war against Iran

No, no, let’s be fair. Let’s show the iron logic for which this column is famed. It is time to set on one side the catastrophic record of Bush, Cheney and the neocons, and look dispassionately at what they are now proposing. In considering the case for an attack on Iran, let us try to ignore the results of the demented adventure in Iraq.

It is not easy. The Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 3,000 US service personnel, about 133 British troops, and anything between 50,000 and 655,000 Iraqis, most of them innocent civilians. There are about 100 Iraqis dying every day, or being hideously maimed, in the course of suicide-bomb attacks. It is undeniable – or at least it is undeniable by anyone except Tony Blair – that the war in Iraq has greatly increased the threat of terrorist attacks in this country and across the world.

But let us momentarily shut our eyes to those truths, and let us decide whether the warmongers are right this time.


A second American aircraft-carrier battle group will soon be in position. The US special forces are apparently on the border, or even operating in Iran itself. Some time this month, we are told, the US administration will ratchet up the pressure by the usual means: the UN will be asked to agree a resolution on the use of force, and failing that, the Israelis will simply go ahead with the bombing, and the US will pile in behind them.

Is it possible that this time, unlike last time, they will get it right? Can we really exclude the possibility that Dubya knows what he is doing? Just because he got it so disastrously wrong in Iraq is no reason to think he is always wrong. Perhaps he is like a brilliant brain surgeon who happens to have made one tragic slip of the knife. Perhaps he is a Nijinsky who launched his career with one bad pratfall. Perhaps there really is a good, solid case to be made for following him into battle again.

Perhaps Cheney and co are right to say that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a new Hitler, and that he could pass his weapons to terrorists, and so on. Indeed, on the face of it, Washington is absolutely correct to be alarmed.

In an ideal world, a man like Ahmadinejad would not have access to nuclear weapons. In an ideal world, the Israelis would find a way of doing one of their lightning raids and depriving Iran of its nuclear capability – and given that the Iranian leader has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, they would have every justification.

Frankly, I would be thrilled if the Americans were really able to knock out the Iranian nukes, if they were able to do it quickly, efficiently and with minimum bloodshed, and to do it in such a way as to stop the hydra regrowing its heads.

And, yet, even if I blot out all memories of past performance, I doubt the wisdom of this administration in taking on any such mission.

These Iranian nuclear-processing plants are not only dotted all over the country; they are also buried under up to 18 metres of concrete. Are the Americans or the Israelis really going to use bunker-busting nuclear weapons to get at them? Are they going to launch a nuclear first strike against a country that still claims its purposes are entirely peaceful?

Put yourself in Iranian shoes, and you will see that any such action would be even more cataclysmic in its consequences than the attack on Iraq. A nuclear attack by America on a sovereign country – and a country that is offering no violence against America – would instantly and globally legitimise reprisals against America, Americans, American interests and American allies.

It is utter madness, and it must not be allowed to happen. As for a conventional attack, it would be much less likely to succeed, and its consequences for the region would be scarcely less baleful – above all in Iraq.

What is the real reason for American rage with Teheran, apart from the nuclear programme? It is the knowledge that the Iranians have made them look like complete idiots, like orang-utans playing chess against a grandmaster.

The Shia exiles such as Ahmed Chalabi were instrumental in bamboozling the Americans to go to war in Iraq. They conned the administration into removing Iran’s most ferocious opponent in the region, and the net result of the whole exercise is that neither Saddam Hussein nor George Bush is the dominant power in Iraq. The dominant power in Iraq is Iran.

Never mind the Iranian-backed Shia militias who are causing such carnage. Look at the composition of the Iraqi parliament, the democratically elected body that Blair occasionally holds up in pathetic vindication of his policy. The single largest group is the 32 Shias who are, again, loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and who control several of the ministries, while being directly linked to the militias.

If you want a flavour of the nightmare and anarchy in Iraq, the Americans were forced, the other day, to arrest a junior health minister called Hakim al-Zamili because he saw no reason why Iraqi ambulances should not be used to transport weapons for the al-Sadr Mahdi Army!

As anybody who has been to Basra soon observes, the people in charge are the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose military wing was trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

Any attack on Iran, in other words, would be answered by yet more viciousness in Iraq, yet more slaughter. Isn’t that obvious?

By all means let us tighten the noose on Ahmadinejad. He is a grotesquely incompetent and socialistic buffoon who is already in deep political trouble. Let us target measures against him and his regime. I don’t even mind a spot of sabre-rattling, if that will really help deter them from their nuclear programme. But for heaven’s sake don’t let Dubya draw that sabre again.

I look at these people in Washington, and I ask myself whether I trust them to embark on such a lunatically risky venture, and in the words of Amy Winehouse I say no, no, no.

Join me now. Say no to Dubya and a war on Iran.

32 thoughts on “No to war on Iran”

  1. Dubya would go to war now because he has nothing to lose!

    Whereas Labour has everything to lose!

    I doubt that we would, though I still join in your call!

  2. Would it not be wiser to say ‘it depends’?

    Even setting aside Aquinas as antiquated war theory, it is dangerous to ignore the theological dimension of Shi’a-ism in this. Any ‘fanatic’ Shi’ites who believe themselves to be the fulfilment of end-time prophecy, heralding the imminent elimination of Israel and the return of the 12th Imam, are not going to be constrained by a premature declaration of ‘peace at all costs’. One cannot say ‘no’ to a war until one hears a justification. I wonder how many would actually countenance an attack if the alternative were the emergence of the Mahdi, the proclamation of a Caliphate, and the consequent declaration of global ‘Jihad’ against the kuffar.

    Iran is run by ayatollahs, not by Ahmadinejad. The title means ‘word of god’. Boris needs to grasp the theological undertones to the geo-political dimension. Focusing purely on the latter is only half the picture.

    PS
    “and in the words of Amy Winehouse I say no, no, no.”

    Surely you mean the words of Margaret Thatcher, in her response to the ambitions of European Commission?

  3. The number deaths in Iraq is irrelevant to whether or not us being there is a good idea. Did anyone consider backing down to IRA because of the number of people they killed? Would resisting a Nazi imvasion have been a bad idea because of the potential casualties? Of course not, because they were just fights. We should attack the principles behind the fight. If it is a cause is worth fighting for, then we shouldn’t get squeamish when the bodies start to pile up.

    The trouble is that in today’s non-judgmental hinterland, where self-absorption rules, the idea of uniting behind a cause seems positively weird. The idea of fighting for it and possibly dying for it seems stranger still.

    On the subject of Iran, in the past the threat of Western military action has kept it ambitions in check. So while I wouldn’t not relish strikes on Iran, showing a willingness to attack is an important political weapon. I’m not sure how we are supposed to differentiate between a genuine willingness to attack and a bit of sabre-rattling. If Western commentators can tell the difference, then you can be sure that the Iranians can.

    I wonder what the reaction will be in the West if Iran strike first.

  4. “The number deaths in Iraq is irrelevant to whether or not us being there is a good idea.”

    What an extraordinary thing to say!

    “Did anyone consider backing down to IRA because of the number of people they killed?”

    Could you explain the parallel here? I’m utterly lost.

    “Would resisting a Nazi imvasion have been a bad idea because of the potential casualties?”

    Are you not aware that invasion and resisting invasion are two different things?

  5. Yes, I say no to Dubya and an attack on Iran.
    My country wouldn’t be (militarily) involved. But I’ll take to the streets again – if I get enough warning.

  6. “The trouble is that in today’s non-judgmental hinterland, where self-absorption rules, the idea of uniting behind a cause seems positively weird”

    Rubbish.

    “According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_protests_against_war_on_IraqSource

    [Sorry, I could have put all of those in one comment. Still asleep …]

  7. If we must go in to Iran then surely the best thing to do is point the Americans in the wrong direction and send in the Gurkas if you want the job done right and through to the end. If you want a long drawn out process by all means follow the stars and stripes.
    No to an American attack/invasion,
    Maybe to the job being done right.

  8. 36 million different people or a one million people protested 36 times type of statistic?

    Even if it is 36 million across the globe that still means nearly six billon people could not be bothered. Which is a pretty poor showing. Your use of statistics does rather go against your own arguement

  9. Adrian Hilton-
    “Even setting aside Aquinas as antiquated war theory, it is dangerous to ignore the theological dimension of Shi’a-ism in this. Any ‘fanatic’ Shi’ites who believe themselves to be the fulfilment of end-time prophecy, heralding the imminent elimination of Israel and the return of the 12th Imam, are not going to be constrained by a premature declaration of ‘peace at all costs’. One cannot say ‘no’ to a war until one hears a justification. I wonder how many would actually countenance an attack if the alternative were the emergence of the Mahdi, the proclamation of a Caliphate, and the consequent declaration of global ‘Jihad’ against the kuffar.”

    What is antiquated about ‘just war theory’ and what would you replace it with?- Just curious.

    All that ‘return of the hidden imam’ nonsense sounds vaguely familiar. Similar to those fanatics wanting the second coming of Christ and the battle of Armaggedon and doing everything possible to ‘bring it on’ (as Bush would probably say) by financing and encouraging the Judeaization of the West Bank!

    I dont know if Bush himself totally buys into all that ‘end-times’ crap (as Reagan appeared to) but he s certainly been depending on the votes of tens of millions of pre-millenial dispensationalist ‘Christians’ that do!

    Just goes to show how religious extremists of every stripe feed off, and have more in common with, each other that any of us generally sane heathens.

    “Boris needs to grasp the theological undertones to the geo-political dimension. ”

    And of the neo-con political dimension equally, i think. Surely two cheeks of a similar arse- and a pox on the both of them as far as i m concerned!

    “Focusing purely on the latter is only half the picture.”PS
    “and in the words of Amy Winehouse I say no, no, no.” ”

    I heartily concur old man, but i think you need to take that advice to heart yourself!

    Tayles-
    “….we shouldn’t get squeamish when the bodies start to pile up.”

    Yeah, as i told you before. Glad you ve finally seen the light.

  10. According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.

    The fact that the anti-war movement’s slogan was “not in my name” says it all for me. It sums up the egocentric nature of protest nowadays. No one thinks they can actually change anything. They just opt out of anything that seems vaguely detrimental to the underdog, irrespective of the finer points, then carry on as normal. This is why the anti-war movement melted away after a couple of years. The same pious middle-class protesters who took part in marches have probably turned their attention to other guilt-assuaging, envy-diverting causes like being Green.

    Most anti-war feeling is more to do with self-serving anti-Americanism than a constructive critique of interventionist policies. If anything, anti-war sentiment seems to be a gasp of outrage that the West could any opinions at all. The Left has spent so long stripping away our core values that all we are left with is the empty doctrine of ‘tolerance’, which means championing any opinion other than our own. The idea that we might be showing a glimmer of self-belief after years of self-flagellation was too much for the Left to stand.

    “Did anyone consider backing down to IRA because of the number of people they killed?”
    Could you explain the parallel here? I’m utterly lost.

    My point is that a cause that is worth standing up for does not cease to become worthwhile because there are unpleasant repercussions, otherwise we would end up surrendering to the first enemy who threatened violence on us. Our stance towards the IRA did not change because of the lives they took. Nor did we surrender to the Nazis because we were sickened by the casualty figures. If you find the loss of life in Iraq unacceptable it must be because you think the cause is not sufficiently valid to warrant such destruction, not because the deaths in themselves require a change of opinion. In more principled times, we reasoned that the sum total of those piled bodies was victory for a way of life that was worth living, fighting and dying for. Nowadays, we find this concept baffling since no one seems to know what our way of life entails. Even the government is asking about for ideas.

    Are you not aware that invasion and resisting invasion are two different things?

    I am, but to my knowledge the majority of deaths in Iraq are caused by fundamentalist maniacs blowing up innocent Iraqis. These lunatics are violently opposed to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. I, for one, am not about to say that the brutal, inhumane alternative they seek has some kind of moral equivalence to Western notions of justice. Nor would I pretend that these maniacs are courageous freedom fighters defending their country.

  11. Insomniac:
    “What is antiquated about ‘just war theory'”

    Err… it’s a thirteenth century construct, so, by definition, is antiquated.

    And as for amendments, well, as far as I know, Aquinas had no notion of nuclear bombs, so the possible necessity for pre-emptive action and the consequent moral complexities do not feature in his ‘Just War’ discourse. It is reasonable to ask (and challenge) the extent to which modern warfare should be subject to the ethical prism of the thirteenth century.

    And by focusing on the ‘fanatic’ Shi’ite end-timers, I had not purposely excluded the theological dimension of the equally-‘fanatic’ pre-millennial dispensationalists. I had a class of students awaiting my presence, and the neeed for brevity interrupted.

  12. This is why the anti-war movement melted away after a couple of years. The same pious middle-class protesters who took part in marches have probably turned their attention to other guilt-assuaging, envy-diverting causes like being Green. (Tayles)

    Is this the same Tayles who wrote the following, not a day or two ago?

    We were told it was something to do with WMDs, but that proved to be a lie. Then the story changed. Suddenly it was about deposing a tyrant. By this stage we were committed to action, meaning that parliament made a decision to go to war on the basis of a lie.

    I wouldn’t say that no good has come from our presence in Iraq. Saddam is gone, after all. However, I don’t believe you can successfully impose democracy on a country – it has to come from within. What really concerns me, though, is that we went to war on the basis of a lie. After a brief furore following the WMD scandal, the lack of any serious consequences for the government has conditioned the public to accept dishonesty as a legitimate political tool.

    All the same lies are being told today as they were 4 or 5 years ago (albeit with rather less passion). Ahmedinijad has simply replaced Saddam as the latest Dr No threatening the existence of civilisation as we know it. Have you not noticed the similarities?

  13. Yes, Idlex, that was me. I didn’t think the war was justifiable. That doesn’t mean I would rule out action against Iran if there was a genuine threat to our safety. The problem with Iraq was that it was a sham. We were told a pack of lies, which I take issue with.

    Perhaps you think I’m being hypocritical for slagging off the anti-war movement on the one hand, while criticising the war on the other? Actually, I have no beef with a reasoned criticism of the war. What I dislike is moral posturing, which is what the anti-war movement of a few years ago appeared to embody.

    I think it’s quite reasonable to defend the concept of war with Iran without necessarily recommending it. The basis for launching attacks would have to be considerably more convincing that it is currently. I take your point about the same old lies, however. How can we be sure that the ‘evidence’ this time is any more reliable than it was with Iraq. Unfortunately Bush and Blair have cried wolf so many times that I doubt many people will believe a word of it.

  14. Adrian Hilton-
    “What is antiquated about ‘just war theory?
    Err… it’s a thirteenth century construct, so, by definition, is antiquated.
    And as for amendments, well, as far as I know, Aquinas had no notion of nuclear bombs, so the possible necessity for pre-emptive action and the consequent moral complexities do not feature in his ‘Just War’ discourse. It is reasonable to ask (and challenge) the extent to which modern warfare should be subject to the ethical prism of the thirteenth century.”

    OK- I agree, 13th century rules are likely to be a poor guide to the present world, so how do you decide and what are your criteria then?

    Would you say Iraq was a pre-emptive or a preventative war (ie a war to prevent a war)? After all, anyone can say “we attacked them because we believed they would attack us in the future when they were stronger”.

    Thats back to the law of the jungle.
    ( I think thats where we re at anyhow -not sure we ever got out of it really).

  15. YES i say to W. Do what is right,save the troops let them come home .Just use the NUKE on any country that tries to get over on us. iTS OUR WAY OF LIFE OR THEIRS,DO YOU WANT TO WIPE YOURE ASS WITH SAND, I DONT.W CALLED SADAMS BUFF iRANS bUFF IS NEXT TO BE CALLED…..NUKE those middle-east buttholes…lol

  16. Ah, Boris.

    And sometimes I agree.

    Without comment. Except this:

    Many many years ago (in the 70s) I was lucky enough to go on a student sponsored trip to Kuwait. Which was no great shakes. Except that in the harbour area we met sailors off the passing dhows, and the nicest, smiliest people there were from…

    Iraq.

    I know. Just a stupid personal memory. Nothing to do with geopolitics in the 21st century.

    But sometimes I remember those sailors and their dhows. And I look at the unreedemable hell we made of Iraq today (yes – US, with our complicity in the Specila Relationship, and the need-for-goods-we-don’t-need) and I want to weep.

    Tomorrow, Iran. Because they proclaim themselves equal to us, and nuclear. And because we fail to see the simplest of all simple truths:

    If we carry a sword, we will be opposed by others who wish to carry a sword of their own.

  17. We should remember how the current Iran came into being. MI6 and the CIA were sent in to de-stabilise the Shah – because he took control of the Western oil company infrastructure. I think, with hindsight, everyone would be better off with that monarch in power today (of course, had he not died!).

    The majority of the people in Iran do not like the Mullah’s strict control. There are elections but only ‘approved’ candidates are allowed. The population is very young. Iranians are not Arabs, despite the comments by their mad leader, there is more tolerance in Iran than in, say, Saudi. There are Synagogues in Iran, Armenian Churches – the constitution guarantees places in government for minorities (of course, there is discrimination and persecution).

    Who would the USA and Israel be attacking in bombing Iran – who would suffer? The government would use this as propaganda against the west and would get support from the electorate. The country actually does need Power (Nuclear projects were initiated with the US in the Shah’s time). Iran wants independence, hence wants to be able to mine and produce it’s own nuclear fuel. The G5 and Germany should flood the country with monitoring teams and allow Iran to get on with their project.

    Did we attack Pakistan for developing Nuclear weapons – or, for that matter, Israel ? Iran is asking for Western help to build Nuclear power plants and we should follow the advice “keep your friends close, your enemies even closer”.

  18. Wonder if any intellectual here can explain the reason why surah nine in the quran has the basmallah missing..?
    most valid question given the present times..

  19. Of course, I actually meant G5 + USA. With hindsight, perhaps the UN Security Council should decide who, if not the IAEA, performs monitoring…

  20. Ahh boris dear boris had you heeded my words that night in crewe , then these current climes may not just have been forseen but prempted in ways the monkeys playing chess would have taken up bingo instead.

  21. When Tony Blair visited a primary school, a teacher asked the Prime Minister if he would like to lead a class discussion on the theme of “tragedy.”
    The Prime Minister asked the class for an example of a “tragedy.”
    One little boy stood up and offered: “If my best friend was playing on a farm and a tractor ran over him and killed him, that would be a ‘tragedy'”.
    “Not really,” said Mr Blair, “that would be an accident.”
    A little girl raised her hand: “If a school bus drove over a cliff, killing 50 children, that would be a tragedy.”
    “I’m afraid not,” explained the Prime Minister, “though that’s what we would call a great loss.”
    The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Finally, at the back of the room, a small boy raised his hand. In a hesitant voice he said: “If the airplane carrying you and Mrs Blair was struck by a “friendly fire” missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy.”
    “Fantastic!” exclaimed Tony Blair. “That’s right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?”
    “Well,” says the boy “it has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn’t be a great loss and it probably wouldn’t be an accident either!”

  22. What a farce the whole Middle East problem is, even without the deliberate misleading of public understanding by Tony Blair and his more loyal cabinet ministers.

    Enormous extra amounts of tax are being channelled in to the military – although, I acknowledge, they do need to prove their training and tools every so often – and this country has lost a lot of respect around the world for having followed the US’s policy of aggression when it wasn’t called for.

    At the same time, we (the West) are fuelling the ever-strengthening (Islamic) Middle East with more and more money through oil purchase, and making more and more likely future oil wars. Additionally, the UK’s economy is propped up by taxation derived from motor fuels – over seventy percent of your petrol cost goes to Gordon Brown, so little wonder government doesn’t really want to reduce our consumption.

    So why, when there is an alternative to oil from the Middle East, are we not developing its production and use, like so many other countries? Why, when the man who developed the diesel engine suggested it should run on plant-derived (renewable) fuel (and demonstrated his engine to the world at the Paris Show running on peanut oil) are we continuing to pour more money into countries like Iran? It may be the British politician’s lust for power, his dislike and distrust of the small man and love of big industry, his fear of change.

    Using the countryside to provide fuel for motive power only ended a century ago, when underground reserves of oil began to power the internal combustion engine (instead of grain for horses) and the Chancellor could at last tap into a lucrative new supply of easy money – a sweet flat tax on travel.

    There is plenty of (UK government-funded) research to suggest it is not feasable to switch to plant-based fuel, that it pollutes more (!) etc. and to ram this fact home Gordon Brown levies the same punitive amounts of tax on vegetable oil as he does on fossil-diesel. More enlightened nations have a zero tax on it, to encourage its development and use.

    The Swiss don’t go around invading other countries, and nobody is suggesting they may be under future threat from Iran’s nuclear missiles. War is a means of controlling people, of individuals making large sums of money through innocent people’s deaths, it is a relict of Man’s past from when we ate each other after a killing. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t defend ourselves, or occasionally make pre-emptive strikes to prevent that from becoming necessary, but Blair’s almost casual (in more than one way) use of the military is shockingly naive.

    We are rapidly becoming a global village, like it or not, and future problems look likely to be much bigger than lobbing missiles at each other. People will look back and use the first half of the (21st as a good example of how Mankind failed to meet the real challenge – and how ironic that was when for the first time Man had the ability to play God with Planet Earth and its life forms. Time for us to employ politicians who have grown out of the school yard mentality, who have real experience in life beyond the Bar or management consultancy, who are well-educated and have real balls. They will be needed.

  23. Insightful (is that a word?) as always Boris. We’re stuck between a rock and hard place. Dont think its just the US and Israel involved in this. Our Government is wedded to Iraq and all consequences arising from our misadventure our partly our responsability and as such we have a responsability to sort them out.

    To say that going to war with the Nazis is a parallel to the current situation is naive. First of all, we sorted the Nazi problem but we’ve done nothing but make the Middle Eastern problem worse, and war with Iran with make things worse BIG TIME.

    The solution is not clear but to sit on our hands for domestic political reasons is reprehensible. Sanctions seems the best way, trying and make life so intolerable for ordinary Iranians that they topple the regime from within, as cruel as it sounds, may the way out.

    P.S. Amy Winehouse? Wow Boris, you dont listen to The Arctic Monkeys as well do you?

  24. I wish Boris all the best in convincing his party colleagues and the goverment of his arguments here. War is the result of the failure of polititions to resolve matters by other means.

    I believe we can be a friend to the USA without blindly following her every wish. If the special relationship excists then we should be able to say NO NO NO as you would when a friend is about to take a wrong turn.

  25. Iran is about the most progressive nation in the region. They have a ‘loud, noisy, belligerant’ government like George Dubya pointed out. Their foreign policy is anti-Israel and anti-US interests, as we saw in Lebanon last summer and are seeing in Iraq now. But nevertheless they are a progressive nation, with low unemployment by regional standards, where young people enjoy good prospects, and their government keep their fingers out of the nation’s till. It’s logical for them to want nuclear power too, one day oil will run out and Iran wants a sustainable economy, who can blame them?

    The thing is, and this is the big sticking point, if George Dubya starts bombing Iran, oil prices will surge to about $150 per barrel. Inflation will start rising, which means my pay will start rising, and UK interest rates will probably rise to 7 or 8 per cent. This will lead to more reposessions, more houses on the market and probably a correction in house prices.

    So whilst war with Iran will be bad for Iran, bad for our boys in Basra, bad for Iraq, bad for the average Brit, and probably bad for the UK economy as a whole, it would be a godsend for me. Inflation running at 5% and 8% interest rates would sort me right out in fact.

    If I take a deep breath, calm myself down at the exciting prospect of pay rises and a house price correction, I’m not actually in favour of bombing Iran unless they attack us. Like many people my age I’m so cheesed off about £200,000 average house prices that if you caught me on a bad day, say after listening to some middle-aged tosser spend an hour talking about the three empty investment flats they’ve bought and their impending retirement in Spain. Or after one of these nausiating bouts of house porn, you know, the fussy, stuck-up housewife on daytime TV with no job who gets guided around three or four properties all priced at £400,000, none of which are good enough for her because the spare room is too small, there’s only one bathroom or it has a red door or long grass something, then I’d be all in favour bombing Iran to smitherines.

    It’s not as if Ahmadinejad speaks highly of us, it’s not as if the Persians have ever done anything for us, it’s not as if they aren’t stirring up trouble for our boys in Iraq, it’s not as if anyone actually trusts him not to make a bomb. In fact every time someone cares to remind me house prices are now 9 times average earnings I often wish George Dubya would just get on with it.

  26. Bush beats himself over windy city problem … he thought it was chicago..isnt allahbama near iraq..?

  27. Alas, while monitoring the build-up for the Iran conflict,it becomes obvious the Iraq and Afghanistan missions are merely part of the “full spectrum” dominance of the region that the US military/industrial muscle has planned.

    Knocking off Mossadegh was simple. Hire thugs from the bizarre.

    This is more complex. East vs West.

    Await the ‘incident’ that triggers the conflict.

  28. Please use the term neocon correctly. It is a term for a liberal turned conservative if looked up properly in the dictionary, not a rhetorical slam.
    Thank you.

Comments are closed.