"Why An Attack On Iran Is Inevitable"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Not_Whistlin_Dixie, Jan 31, 2005.

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:

  1. Here's a piece by a fellow who insists (i) that USA intends to assault Iran soon and (ii) that the Blair government is duplicitous in declaring that it will keep the U.K. out of the fight:

    "Blair in fact refused in the House of Commons on 26th January 2005 to give an “unequivocal and categorical assurance” that Britain would not attack Iran, although he was specifically asked to do so. He said instead, “I know of no such contemplation by the United States of America” [see footnote [9] for the exact exchange] and claimed that Dick Cheney had given an assurance that America was not contemplating any attack. But both these statements were untrue. Cheney did not say the US was not contemplating an attack [see footnote [10] for the text of his interview] and Bush, as have seen, had specifically mentioned the possibility of an attack the previous week.

    So the conclusion is ineluctable: Blair is using precisely the same dissembling tactics as he used in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. He has been attacked for his attachment to spin, but in truth his political style is that of a poker-player: his words are just intended to get him through to the next round. His denials of the existence of any plan of attack against Iran have only one purpose: to keep the issue out of the news until after the general election, which will be held on 5th May 2005. After that, anything goes."

    "Britain, The U.S., And Europe: Why An Attack On Iran Is Inevitable" by John Laughland.
  2. To summarize what we have analyzed, based on various prophecies, the Third World War would start when Russia suddenly attacks Europe in coalition with certain Middle Eastern countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya and probably China. Prior to the World War III, USA would be severely crippled by terrorist attacks, assassinations, a civil war and an economic collapse. Europe would be almost overrun by the Russian and eastern forces and many of its cities and also those of USA would be destroyed by conventional weapons as well as weapons of mass destruction like nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Russia would attack from the North as well as from the East of Europe. An Arab / Iranian army would attack from the south. The Pope, and later the British Prime Minister would be forced to flee to the US. Paris would be destroyed by "revolutionaries" within France. The attack on the US would stop the Civil War there. New types of weapons, like Chemical Weapons and particularly what appears to be portable Laser weapons, would be used in the war. At the same time an unprecedented disaster would take place. A comet would suddenly appear over the earth in the peak of the war, would break into several pieces and fall to the earth. Smaller pieces would rain fire on cities and forests all over the world, burning them down. A large piece would fall into the sea creating a Tsunami of Biblical proportions, flooding parts of Europe (including Britain), USA and Africa. One medium sized chunk would fall on land, creating a huge crater, resulting in earthquake and volcano activities all over the world. This event would loosen the grip of the invading army over Europe. A joint coalition of US and European forces under the leadership of a charismatic leader "Chiren" would organize a counter-attack against the invading forces in Europe and elsewhere. The Russian forces in Europe would be almost destroyed by the counter-attack and this would lead to a revolution in Russia and the Russian leader who started the war would be assassinated. Russia, under a new leader would then join the western coalition and fight against its former allies, who would eventually be defeated. The Pope would return to Europe and Chiren would be crowned the Monarch. Peace would return to the world after a loss of almost two-thirds of its population and the wealth of nations accumulated over millennia. But this would surely not be the end of the world.

    It is hard to understand at this stage why Russia would suddenly attack Europe. Yet, most of the prophecies seem to agree on this part. Logically too, it is only Russia which has the capability to take on the might of USA and Europe, even after the break up of its empire. It still has sufficient nuclear weapons, technology and manpower to do so. The overall picture of the events leading to the World War is not clear. What appears from some prophecies is that immediately preceding the war, Russia would have tensions with the west over some Middle Eastern affair. But the actual war would begin after the assassination of a political leader in the Balkan area, who could be the famous "Mabus" often discussed in the context of Nostradamus's prophecies. The Russian attack might be a result of its perception that the assassination, probably in one of its friendly countries, could be a prelude to an western invasion and the best way would be to pre-empt it. A major terrorist attack on the US, assassination of some world leaders and another war in the Middle East may precede the Third World War, apart from numerous natural disasters. Some prophecies say that before the 3rd World War, Israel would grant statehood to Palestine. Then oil would be discovered there and a war would start between Israel and Palestine. It is probable that it is this war that would generate tensions between USA and Russia, since US and Russian fleets are said to confront each other in a tense standoff in the Mediterranean before the war in yet another prophecy. The Bible and the Islamic texts also mention Iraq. It is said that the river Euphrates would dry up and something would be discovered in its dried up riverbed, which would cause much tension among nations. There are also prophecies on the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque / Temple Mount in Jerusalem before the war.

    check that sh1t out 8O

    (sorry - off topic - will delete if mercilessley ragged by all)
  3. N_W_D, If I wasn't so cynical, I'd say you were creating a mountain out of a molehill....but I am :lol: Surely Bliar isn't stupid enough to give a non-answer to a direct question involving the armed forces?

    {Interlude as Ghost_Rider slaps himself violently with a large haddock}

    Wow, back to reality :wink: A politican failing to answer a direct question with a straight answer? Perhaps this could be posed to the next Question Time panel - I believe suggestions were requested!


    Anyway, back to my own little world of paranoia and cynicism :lol: :lol:
  4. That still seems to be the front runner on the date of the next UK General Election. The issue of the new DCI on Armed Forces voting arguably lends further weight to that date, but I still think it unsafe to make any firm assumption. UK General Elections are traditionally held on a Thursday.

    Re Laughland, he is one of those 'courageous' partisan journalists who sometimes gets it wrong, to my personal knowledge, and also sometimes gets it right when others are failing to even mention the story.
  5. Haven't we just put a sizeable Naval Force into the area on 'Exercise' ?
  6. I don't think we have a 'sizeable Naval Force' any longer, PTP. You could just about park the entire RN on the duck pond in St James's Park, which makes it much handier for the Queen when she wants to review the fleet, Gawd bless 'er.
  7. I said sizeable to spare the First Sea Lord's blushes CP

    Fancy putting an Admiral in charge of a *Cough* 3 *cough* ship formation.
  8. Someone told him size wasnt important :twisted:
  9. where will we get the troops from? cos we are having trouble with manning levels as it is, use the troops in Iraq already? doubt it, you can bet that insurgency/resistance activity will go into overdrive.
  10. Not_Whistling_Dixie said:
    So let me get this straight. On the stength of a typical BLiar non-committal answer you definitely believe we are of to attack Iran? My God you could ask Bliar if he loved his children and his answer would still fall short of a solid endoresment. Polies are paranoid that any straight answer will be held against them at a future date so even the most obvious non starter of a question will not receive a straight reply.

    When you say attack Iran do you mean physically invade and occupy or say one or a series of air strikes?
  11. On the strength of a typical Blair non-committal answer , and given his track record.

    On the strength of Jack Straw starting off with 'Absolutely no chance' and modifying his language in recent days?


    I am now waiting out , as the case against Iran is constructed. I do not see the rhetoric, hyperbole and 'Solid intelligence' differing much , from the language used preceding the Great Arabian Adventure.

    It won't differ much, because the people driving this, lack imagination and creativity. Which further implies that the people who do have these qualities are staying well clear.
  12. We probably need to be clearer about what we mean here. An attack on Iran in the sense of an invasion is most unlikely because we really don't have the strength to do it whilst simultaneously nancy-ing about with the Iraq insurgency. However, an attack on Iran in the form of a series of surgical strikes against nuclear and other WMD facilities, and possibly against military C3I is not impossible, if not by us and the US, then by the Spams' Israeli proxies. I wouldn't entirely rule out a similar strike against Syria either.

    It's evident that someone is spinning this at the moment in order to get the 'pro' arguments out into the open, which doesn't mean it's going to happen, but does suggest that someone, somewhere, wants it to.
  13. For Feck sake Why :x :x :x

    It's obvious Blair wants to build up the Empire again.......... He just needs Feckwit Bush's help and Army!!!!!

    ACF and OTC will lead the Initial invasion backed up by the Armour and Aircraft currently on display in our Musems

    The Occupation and Peace Support side of teh Operation will be supported by the Chelsea Pensioners............................................

    I think I had better stay off the coffee today

    Easy goes off back to his padded cell :oops: :oops:
  14. well they wont give our boats back so lets nuke them
    Its as sane as any other policy on the middle east