Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is Bush planning an attack on Iran in March?


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Writing in today's Daily Mail, Craig Murray explains: How I know Blair faked Iran map

If the Daily Mail carries on like this, it will confirm my dear grandmother's view that the Mail is the best newspaper in Britain - although it took 50 years to see her vindicated :rolleyes:

It sounds like Mail readers are on the up as well. Here's a selection of comments posted to Murray's article:

Ha ha yet another dodgy dossier?

- Garry Laine, Maryport

Craig Murray you should be in charge of this fiassco, not half wits like Bliar.

- Richard Partridge, South Ruislip UK

The next job for Blair and his spin team is to go out in a row boat with a pot of paint and paint the boundaries on the ocean. He should make a better job of it, than he is running the country.

- John, Clacton

One thing's for sure - the master of bodge and spin has lost his credibility in middle Britain.

Not enough torque to start a war, Tony?

Back to the Israelis...

The Iranians and Iraqi don’t seem to differ that much on the sea boarder as this map from Iranian TV demonstrates both sides agree that it extendens southeast from the Shatt al Arab thus the fact that the position was closer to Iran than Iraqi is irelevant.

_42747531_iranian_version_sail_2.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6502805.stm

The Iranian claim is undermined by the fact it seems to have given two accounts of where the British boat was the 2nd set of coordinates being closer to it shores while the first was in Iraqi waters

On 24 March the Iranian government told the UK - according to the UK's Ministry of Defence - that the merchant vessel was at a different location, but still within Iraqi waters.

When the UK pointed out to the Iranians that the location they had given was within Iraqi waters, the Iranians provided a "corrected" location, nearly 1 nautical mile away (1.9km) from its first position but within Iranian waters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6502805.stm

I find this excerpt of the Wikipedia entry about the incident more convincing than Murry’s editorial, there are links to references in the original (unlike Murry who doesn’t source his claims):

According to analysis by the International Boundary Research Unit (IBRU) at Durham University in the United Kingdom, the location provided by the UK Ministry of Defence for the location of the seizure is 3.1 km southwest of this Point "R" boundary terminus and 2.9 km south of this international boundary line. Thus the university says: "The point lies on the Iraqi side of....the agreed land boundary. This has been challenged by Iran, whose second set of released co-ordinates were inside its territorial waters. But the location provided by the UK Ministry is not in disputed territory according to IBRU, which says the boundary is disputed only beyond Point "R" (to the east and southeast). Confirming this, Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King's College London, stated "Iran and Iraq have never agreed to a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_...n_force_at_site

Funny that Sid would cite Murry to bolster his case the incident was an intentional provocation by the British when Murry’s position seems to be that it was a misunderstanding (which Blair is exploiting).

Also funny that he seems to think that a couple of people’s comments to an online editorial are at all indicative of how people in “middle Britain” feel about Blair. It could well be the case that he has indeed “lost his credibility” amongst them (I don’t trust him) but the cited evidence is woefully insuficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 364
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FWIW, I think the capture of the British sailors was a mistake and they should be released. The fact that you have aggresively seized upon this issue while dismissing the provocations from the other side proves that your reputation for seeing only one side of the argument is, unfortunately, well warranted.

Actually Mark believe it or not our views on the Bush administration aren’t that different, I believe he and his administration intentionally “sex up” and faked the evidence against Iraq to jutify war they had previously decided upon. But just because I don’t like Bush I’m not going to say he is always 100% wrong and people who oppose his are always right, that’s too simplistic. FWIW it was Sid not I who brought the issue up here insinuating (with out any real evidence) this was an intentional provocation of Blair and his perpetual werewolf the dreaded “Zionists”. IF he hadn’t brought it up I wouldn’t have mentioned it.

As in the Cold War I think both sides are to blame you accuse me of being one-sided but that epitaph seems better suited to you.

Writing in today's Daily Mail, Craig Murray explains: How I know Blair faked Iran map

If the Daily Mail carries on like this, it will confirm my dear grandmother's view that the Mail is the best newspaper in Britain - although it took 50 years to see her vindicated :rolleyes:

It sounds like Mail readers are on the up as well. Here's a selection of comments posted to Murray's article:

Ha ha yet another dodgy dossier?

- Garry Laine, Maryport

Craig Murray you should be in charge of this fiassco, not half wits like Bliar.

- Richard Partridge, South Ruislip UK

The next job for Blair and his spin team is to go out in a row boat with a pot of paint and paint the boundaries on the ocean. He should make a better job of it, than he is running the country.

- John, Clacton

One thing's for sure - the master of bodge and spin has lost his credibility in middle Britain.

Not enough torque to start a war, Tony?

Back to the Israelis...

The Iranians and Iraqi don’t seem to differ that much on the sea boarder as this map from Iranian TV demonstrates both sides agree that it extendens southeast from the Shatt al Arab thus the fact that the position was closer to Iran than Iraqi is irelevant.

_42747531_iranian_version_sail_2.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6502805.stm

The Iranian claim is undermined by the fact it seems to have given two accounts of where the British boat was the 2nd set of coordinates being closer to it shores while the first was in Iraqi waters

On 24 March the Iranian government told the UK - according to the UK's Ministry of Defence - that the merchant vessel was at a different location, but still within Iraqi waters.

When the UK pointed out to the Iranians that the location they had given was within Iraqi waters, the Iranians provided a "corrected" location, nearly 1 nautical mile away (1.9km) from its first position but within Iranian waters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6502805.stm

I find this excerpt of the Wikipedia entry about the incident more convincing than Murry’s editorial, there are links to references in the original (unlike Murry who doesn’t source his claims):

According to analysis by the International Boundary Research Unit (IBRU) at Durham University in the United Kingdom, the location provided by the UK Ministry of Defence for the location of the seizure is 3.1 km southwest of this Point "R" boundary terminus and 2.9 km south of this international boundary line. Thus the university says: "The point lies on the Iraqi side of....the agreed land boundary. This has been challenged by Iran, whose second set of released co-ordinates were inside its territorial waters. But the location provided by the UK Ministry is not in disputed territory according to IBRU, which says the boundary is disputed only beyond Point "R" (to the east and southeast). Confirming this, Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King's College London, stated "Iran and Iraq have never agreed to a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_...n_force_at_site

Funny that Sid would cite Murry to bolster his case the incident was an intentional provocation by the British when Murry’s position seems to be that it was a misunderstanding (which Blair is exploiting).

Also funny that he seems to think that a couple of people’s comments to an online editorial are at all indicative of how people in “middle Britain” feel about Blair. It could well be the case that he has indeed “lost his credibility” amongst them (I don’t trust him) but the cited evidence is woefully insuficient.

Len

Not for the first time you "summarize" my argument, gradually shifting the goalposts so you end up distorting my words.

To clarify my position, yes, I do believe there is a conspiracy against Iran, directed mainly by the Zionist leadership, but not limited to Zionist interests alone. I think that's not a very contentious position to hold in April 2007. It's rather obvious.

Was this particular event an "intentional provocation by the British"? I don't know. I didn't say that.

It is, however, exactly thr type of incident feared by people who, like myself, have been anxiously watching the pressure ratcheted up against Iran and the seemingly inexorable roll out of US-Israeli war preparations.

Will Iran be actually attacked by the US/Israel... even Britain... this (northern) Spring or over the next year or so?

I don't know.

When this thread started, March was the feared month for the outbreak of war. This week, there are rumours of a strike at Easter. Will the mad beasts of war actually be unleashed? I don't.know.

I don't even know for sure that the principal advocates of a military assault have made up their own minds. As I said in previous posts, my analysis, FWIW, is that the warmongers have a tough choice before them...

Hold back - and they "risk", over time, reduced ability to push the USA and Britain into war against their Chosen Enemy No 1, as popular revulsion against blood-soaked neocon policies eventually gains firmer political expression in these English-speaking countries.

Attack Iran now, and they could well generate a level of chaos that pitches the world into a major economic recession - then face an unprecedented backlash from swelling numbers of people in the western world who are fast waking up to who has been driving this insane war agenda.

The classic "solution" in such circumstances has been to pull a paradigm-shifting false flag operation.

9/11 - coming only days after the UN Conference on Racism - was the quintessential instance of this murderous approach to winning arguments and influencing people.

But 9/11 fooled almost all the people for only so long. Then came the fiasco/disgrace of the non-existent Iraqi WMDs and a bloody, unsuccessful war fought on false pretences.

A major false flag atrocity to justify attacking Iran could backfire badly - and lead to the final unraveling of this disgusting conspiracy of supremacists, murderers and racketeers.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry Chin writing in Online Journal is not optimistic - see Is UK-Iran marine incident part of larger war provocation plan?. He sees a potential leading role for Britain in the threatened assault on Iran and reminds us of British black ops of the recent past.....

Anyone knowing the date of an attack is poised to make a killing in the market, as they say. Lucky neocons! War: the ultimate racket.

Wait a Minute - I thought Bush was going to invade Iran in March, right? I read it right here in the title of this post - Bush is going to invade Iran in March.

That bet is lost, right?

It is April and no invasion.

I'm glad I didn't bet the house on it.

So now, what is it, double or nothing on April?

The USA doesn't need to invade Iran, all it needs to do to counter the Islamic Revolution of Iran is to foster the American revolutionary ideals of freedom, free trade, liberty and justice, and feed the ever growing legion of Iranian teenagers what they want and the government won't let them have - rock & roll.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry Chin writing in Online Journal is not optimistic - see Is UK-Iran marine incident part of larger war provocation plan?. He sees a potential leading role for Britain in the threatened assault on Iran and reminds us of British black ops of the recent past.....

Anyone knowing the date of an attack is poised to make a killing in the market, as they say. Lucky neocons! War: the ultimate racket.

Wait a Minute - I thought Bush was going to invade Iran in March, right? I read it right here in the title of this post - Bush is going to invade Iran in March.

That bet is lost, right?

It is April and no invasion.

I'm glad I didn't bet the house on it.

So now, what is it, double or nothing on April?

The USA doesn't need to invade Iran, all it needs to do to counter the Islamic Revolution of Iran is to foster the American revolutionary ideals of freedom, free trade, liberty and justice, and feed the ever growing legion of Iranian teenagers what they want and the government won't let them have - rock & roll.

BK

I saw the movie Syriana last night. Good movie.

Is there such an organization as the committe for the liberation of Iran? They were made out to be fairly clueless concerning Iranian intenal poltics in the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

I think its relatively safe to say that the Iraqi debarcle might have applied the brakes to any further Neo-Con hegemonic adventure for the time being. Perhaps Blair could persuade his buddy Dubya to invade Scotland ahead of the upcomming elections to the Scotish Parliament, looks like Labour are in for an ouster at the hands of the Scotish Nationalist Party. "Alex Salmond is a terrorist"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we are jumping the gun a little here.

1. This is a UK problem, not US.

2. The boarding parties board the ships on their planned tracks; they don't ask the ships to go into Iranian waters before boarding them.

3. The correct response (IMO) would have been to escorted the personnel out of Iranian waters. Neither the vessel's crew nor the boarding party have been shown to have been committing any illegal act.

4. The position where the boarding took place is disputed.

5. Boardings by other countries have almost certainly taken place in / around the same area, and have been witnessed by the Iranians. I am unaware of any protests previously made by the Iranians that the UN forces were conducting boarding operations in Iranian waters.

6. The last thing, IMO, the US wants right now is an armed conflict with Iran. It won't admit it, but it's stretched tight and has little surge capability to fight another protracted ground war. IMO that will make them actually try to prevent any UK military action against Iran.

7. It is the IRGN who has committed this action, not the RN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len

Not for the first time you "summarize" my argument, gradually shifting the goalposts so you end up distorting my words.

To clarify my position, yes, I do believe there is a conspiracy against Iran, directed mainly by the Zionist leadership, but not limited to Zionist interests alone. I think that's not a very contentious position to hold in April 2007. It's rather obvious.

Was this particular event an "intentional provocation by the British"? I don't know. I didn't say that.

I went back over your previous posts and see that I misread your position. You did however post a link to an 'essay' by someone who backs the 'intentional provocation' theory and you are a big fan of "false flag" theories.

"To clarify my position, yes, I do believe there is a conspiracy against Iran, directed mainly by the Zionist leadership, but not limited to Zionist interests alone. I think that's not a very contentious position to hold in April 2007. It's rather obvious."

Not contentious among the small group of people who believe what you do. Are the warmongers currently in power in the US, UK and Israel a contemtable bunch? Yes. Is there evidence they are conspiring against Iran? I've yet to see anything to indicate that is the case. The current extremist cabal in control of Iran seem to be doing a good job of conspiring against themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seeing that this is April 3rd, can we assume the answer is: NO?

Douglas didn't specify which March, so a more precise answer would be "it's too soon to say".

An even more precise answer would take into account the probable disconnect between what George Bush plans and what actually happens.

Here's a recent report indicating that Nixon was kept well out of the loop over the Yom Kippur War: Book says Kissinger delayed telling Nixon about Yom Kippur War to keep him from interfering.

Does anyone really imagine that if the blue meanies want to start a hot war with Iran, they'd let Dubya plan it?

Kissinger would probably advise not to wake him until it's over.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we are jumping the gun a little here.

1. This is a UK problem, not US.

2. The boarding parties board the ships on their planned tracks; they don't ask the ships to go into Iranian waters before boarding them.

3. The correct response (IMO) would have been to escorted the personnel out of Iranian waters. Neither the vessel's crew nor the boarding party have been shown to have been committing any illegal act.

4. The position where the boarding took place is disputed.

5. Boardings by other countries have almost certainly taken place in / around the same area, and have been witnessed by the Iranians. I am unaware of any protests previously made by the Iranians that the UN forces were conducting boarding operations in Iranian waters.

6. The last thing, IMO, the US wants right now is an armed conflict with Iran. It won't admit it, but it's stretched tight and has little surge capability to fight another protracted ground war. IMO that will make them actually try to prevent any UK military action against Iran.

7. It is the IRGN who has committed this action, not the RN.

They've just been released. Looks like it's an American issue again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an amusing semi-related sidebar, what about Nancy Pelosi's meeting with Syrian President Assad?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3006905

An envoy of Israel's message of peace, we're told. Well, I'll just reserve judgement on that for the time being.

The amusing part is the symbolism of the whole thing. House Leader visits 'sponsor of state terrorism', against strong disapproval from grumbling President.

Bush is bypassed....circumvented.....passed over....sidelined.

A whining irrelevancy, sent by the teacher to stand in the corner while Pelosi attempts to do something the President is too stupid and weak to do.

This man's(?) time is up, surely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seeing that this is April 3rd, can we assume the answer is: NO?

Douglas didn't specify which March, so a more precise answer would be "it's too soon to say".

An even more precise answer would take into account the probable disconnect between what George Bush plans and what actually happens.

Here's a recent report indicating that Nixon was kept well out of the loop over the Yom Kippur War: Book says Kissinger delayed telling Nixon about Yom Kippur War to keep him from interfering.

Does anyone really imagine that if the blue meanies want to start a hot war with Iran, they'd let Dubya plan it?

Kissinger would probably advise not to wake him until it's over.

Sid you left out that according to the article you cited Kissinger was informed at 6 AM at which time the president was sleeping and that he told Al Haig (the president’s chief of staff) at around 8:30 who agreed that there was no need to wake him. Though the cited Reuters article said Kissinger did this to keep Nixon from interfering that wasn’t said in the Vanity Fair article on which it was based:

The White House

On the morning of October 6—Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar—Egypt attacked Israeli forces in the Sinai even as Syria struck the Israelis in the Golan Heights. A combination of complete surprise and effective preparation initially gave Egypt and Syria the advantage.

From the outset Kissinger, who was now secretary of state as well as national-security adviser, centered control of the crisis in his own hands. The Israelis had informed him of the attacks at six a.m. that Saturday, but three and a half hours would pass before he felt the need to consult Nixon, who had escaped Washington for his retreat in Key Biscayne, Florida. At 8:35 a.m., Kissinger called Haig, who was with the president, to report on developments. He said, according to a phone transcript, "I want you to know … that we are on top of it here." To ensure that the media not see Nixon as out of the loop, Kissinger urged Haig to say "that the President was kept informed from 6:00 a.m. on." When Kissinger finally called Nixon, at 9:25 a.m., the president left matters in Kissinger's hands. But he asked, according to a transcript, that Kissinger "indicate you talked to me."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...5?currentPage=3

Altough later it reports “When Haig reported that Nixon was considering returning to Washington, Kissinger discouraged it—part of a recurring pattern to keep Nixon out of the process.”

Since the war started with an unprovoked surprise attack by Syria and Egypt and the US eventually ended up providing aid to the Israelis, and the Israelis were loosing during the first day or so any delay in informing the president if it helped either side would have benefitted the Arabs, not a very NWO thing to now was it? Kissinger intervened to put pressure on the Israeli’s to make peace on terms less favorable than they wanted and could have obtained on the battlefield.

Wikipedia quoted another book about the incident:

"When Kissinger asked Haig whether [Nixon] should be wakened, the White House chief of staff replied firmly 'No.' Haig clearly shared Kissinger's feelings that Nixon was in no shape to make weighty decisions."

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

Such an interpretation is not entirely unsupported by the Vanity Fair article:

Many facets of Kissinger's operating procedure were in full-blown display during the 1973 Yom Kippur War: the secrecy, the subterfuge, and the desire to gather power to himself. The crisis arose just as a convergence of domestic scandals rocked the White House. The president was losing his battle to keep the Watergate tapes under seal. The Saturday Night Massacre, when Nixon fired the Watergate special prosecutor and accepted the resignations of the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, was merely weeks away. And Vice President Spiro Agnew was on the verge of resigning, in the face of charges of extortion, bribery, and income-tax evasion. The president was deeply preoccupied, and at times incapacitated by self-pity or alcohol.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...5?currentPage=2

What was Kissinger up to? Trying to keep a war from breaking out it seems, what a dirty trick. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/index.htm

I’m not a fan of Kissinger’s action regarding Chile and East Timor etc etc but I don’t see anything wrong with his actions that morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we are jumping the gun a little here.

1. This is a UK problem, not US.

2. The boarding parties board the ships on their planned tracks; they don't ask the ships to go into Iranian waters before boarding them.

3. The correct response (IMO) would have been to escorted the personnel out of Iranian waters. Neither the vessel's crew nor the boarding party have been shown to have been committing any illegal act.

4. The position where the boarding took place is disputed.

5. Boardings by other countries have almost certainly taken place in / around the same area, and have been witnessed by the Iranians. I am unaware of any protests previously made by the Iranians that the UN forces were conducting boarding operations in Iranian waters.

6. The last thing, IMO, the US wants right now is an armed conflict with Iran. It won't admit it, but it's stretched tight and has little surge capability to fight another protracted ground war. IMO that will make them actually try to prevent any UK military action against Iran.

7. It is the IRGN who has committed this action, not the RN.

They've just been released. Looks like it's an American issue again.

Not so fast, Mark!

First the British tabloids will take a feeding frenzy.

On Easter Sunday, the Observer announces: Anger as hostages sell stories to highest bidders. After a rather brief Lent, these hostages to fortune have indeed been resurrected in spectacular fashion!

That's right, they are going to make a motza telling their stories!

It makes a foray into Iranian waters a most attractive option for any boatload of British sailors who get bored and feel like a gamble.

If they're lucky, they get to shake hands with a President, maybe have tea with the Queen as well and put aside a tidy nest-egg for the future, having ghost-writers from MI 6 telling their heart-rending tales of captivity.

Unlucky?

Well, they might just set off WW3...

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a loyal subject of the Queen, it sickens me to see the British people exposed as shysters, charlatans and bald-faced liars.

The entire Iranian nation must be rolling in the isles when they switch on their TVs - and the joke is on Her Majesty's Government, armed forces... and ultimately Her entire nation. How much more can She take, I wonder, before abdicating in disgust and moving to somewhere civilized like Ireland or New Zealand?

WakeUpFromYourSlumber.com has an amusing article: Iran releases rebuttal footage of sailors playing chess

This is from the weekend Guardian:

Iran Airs New Video of British Navy Crew

Sunday April 8, 2007 11:31 PM

AP Photo LLP101

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian television broadcast video footage Sunday showing a British navy crew playing chess and watching television during their nearly two-week captivity in Iran, saying the footage refutes the sailors' and marines' claims that they were mistreated.

Crew members told reporters two days ago after returning to Britain that they had been blindfolded, held in isolation, frightened and coerced into falsely saying that they had entered Iranian waters before they were seized.

Some of the video clips, briefly aired on Iran's state-run Arabic satellite TV channel Al-Alam, showed several of the eight sailors and seven marines dressed in track suits and playing chess and table tennis. Other clips showed crew members watching soccer on television and eating at a long table decorated with flowers. Crew members could be heard laughing and chatting.

A newscaster who spoke over the beginning of the footage said the video proved ``the sailors had complete liberty during their detention, which contradicts what the sailors declared after they arrived in Britain.''

On Friday, Lt. Felix Carman, who was in charge of the crew when it was captured March 23, said the sailors and marines were only allowed to socialize for the benefit of the Iranian media.

``We were kept in isolation until the last few nights, when we were allowed to get together for a few hours, in the full glare of the Iranian media,'' Carman said at a news conference. ``But that was very much a setup, very much a stunt for Iranian propaganda.''

The crew members also insisted that they were in Iraqi waters when they were seized.

Iran dismissed the sailors' news conference as propaganda.

Two days before their release, Tehran had pledged not to show more video of the captured crew.

The British Foreign Office did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment...

Rather busy down at the FO, eh? Phones running hot, what?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is almost certain that Bush has rejected an attack on Iran for the time being. It is generally accepted that an attempt to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities would strengthen the elements of the Tehran regime Bush would like to weaken. It is also believed that if a strike took place the Iranian government would join forces with the Shi’ite militias in waging war on the Allies in Iraq.

Bush was tempted to use to British hostage crisis to launch an attack on Iran. Bush was warned that if he did that he faced the possibility of a constitutional crisis with Congress coming close to trying to veto decisions taken by the commander-in-chief.

The problem with this view is that Bush is becoming increasing desperate in his attempts to resolve his problems in Iraq. His latest strategy is clearly not working. The issue is whether Bush can accept defeat or will he take one final gamble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...