uk not to be included in iran/ syria war.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by quiller, Apr 2, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:



    Jack Straw has ruled out British involvement in any US military action against Syria or Iran.

    The Foreign Secretary said Britain would have "nothing whatever" to do with any such acts.

    His comments follow speculation America may take action against the two countries.

    US President George Bush identified Iran as part of the "axis of evil" which included Iraq and North Korea.

    His Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently warned Syria against supplying military equipment to Saddam Hussein's regime, saying it was committing a "hostile act".

    He said the US would hold Syria to account for its actions.

    Mr Straw said: "Iran is a completely different country and situation from Iraq. Iran is an emerging democracy and there would be no case whatsoever for taking any kind of action."

    Mr Straw was asked on BBC Radio whether he was worried that an impression was being created that once Iraq had been tackled, Syria and Iran might be next in line.

    The Foreign Secretary said: "It would worry me if it were true. It is not true, and we would have nothing whatever to do with an approach like that."
  2. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Sorry did that prick just say what France said about Iraq?

    Just wanting to make sure that we're not a bunch of onion eating garlic smelling pansies...

    Dear Damascus,
    Please feel free to export whatever you like to help your mate Saddam and please feel free to build WMD's.  The Brits won't be coming and therefore probably never will the Americans.
    Kind regards
    Mr H
  3. im having my doubts about supporting further wars if its true that the  yanks are going to stiff us on post GW2 reconstruction contracts  :mad:
  4. Under current circumstances I don't think either Syria or Iran would push the Americans to the point of attacking them.
  5. I'll second that.  How many Yanks have been killed by Brit fire?  
  6. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Only 'cos we are outnumbered by them on the ground (and overwhelmingly in the air).

    Otherwise, the Crabs are well capable of dropping things in the wrong place ;)
  7. I think the British government has it's own agenda as regards reconstruction contracts....

    Softly softly etc
  8. Mr Straw said Iran was an emerging democracy which was giving "good co-operation".

    "There would be no case whatsoever for taking any kind of action against Iran," he told Today.

    It was important Syria ensured that its territory "is not used as a conduit for military supplies to the government of Iraq and I hope they are not doing so", he argued.

    He was asked whether he was concerned about the impression being created that the US might think it should act against Syria and Iran next.

    He replied: "It would worry me if it were true. It is not true and we would have nothing whatever to do with an approach like that."

    Just remember that when we're fighting around Damascus :(
  9. Wouldn't mind a puff of what he's been smoking!
  10. Ventress

    Ventress LE Moderator

    Is it just me, or has anyone else seen where this is going! To try and take on Iran, Syria- where does it stop?

    Lybia, Yemen, you name it the Yanks are coming! And if you have oil watch out! Venezuala you are high on the list1

    The rocky road!
  11. I don't agree with that whatsoever PTP. I think Blair and Straw dug a hole and couldn't get out about six months ago at least, not without making their positions untenable. Besides that, Straw saying we wouldn't be involved sounds reminiscent of Blair saying we wouldn't be involved in Iraq without a second UN resolution...

    I believe that Blair didn't think this war would happen, and as for Straw...

    Agree with the war or not, agree with the Yanks or not, this was never something that Blair was in control of, and I sincerely think that the forces and Chiefs of Staff have pulled him out the shyte. I honestly Blair did the right thing for the wrong reasons. After all the 'evidence' he produced, and constantly changing reasons why we should go to war, I'm just too cynical about this 'regular guy next door' [sic] to come to any other conclusion. :-/
  12. I don't think that either Syria or Iran will require the attentions of the US governments regeime changing policies.

    Iran is currently undergoing a period of intense political turmoil. The reformist President and parliament (both democratically elected) are going to to toe with the hardline religious establishment headed by the self appointing "Council of Guardians", who effectively have right of veto over any decisions made by the government. The Council frequently block the moves towards democracy and openess that the majority of Iranians desire and send their religious police out onto the streets to intimidate the population. Given time though, democracy will prevail without a helping hand from Uncle Sam.

    Syria is now run by Bashir Assad, son of the former dictator who trained as a doctor in London. His military is in a parlous condition and he has shown no desire to aggravate the traditional enemy of Israel, the current dispute with the US over supplying NVG's etc to Iraq will blow over (watch me get proved wrong by the next Sky News bulletin!). Syria will no doubt plod along, gradually more open and less belligerent, their economy is up the creek, they can't afford to go sabre rattling.
  13. According to some bull I read somewhere taking control of Iraq and Afghanistan are just steps to help them with the US's long term goal of taking Iran.  Also the mil public affairs say that UK+US spec ops guys are working almost as one unit at the moment in the west although I presume the Brits stay back at camp when the US go off and stop those supplies coming in from Jordan and Syria? ???