British Foreign Secretary sacked. Paves way for Iran invasion?

[bennywhale]

So why did Blair sack Straw?

Ewen MacAskill seems to think it's because Bush told him to...


The key to the demotion of Jack Straw from foreign secretary is Iran. Mr Straw for more than a year, in his favourite outlet the BBC Today programme or at various press conferences, said repeatedly a military strike on Iran was inconceivable.

Politicians always try to avoid boxing themselves in, but Straw did on this issue: if a military strike had become a serious option, he would have been forced to resign.

He was reflecting the reality of British domestic politics. Against the background of the Iraq debacle, Mr Straw knew it would be difficult to win support for the military option in cabinet and that it would create even more upheaval among the membership of the already weakened Labour party.

The problem for Mr Straw is that Tony Blair does not view Iran the same way. He regards the threat posed by Iran as the most serious in the world today, and is even more messianic on the issue than George Bush. That does not mean that a military strike will happen but Mr Blair, like Mr Bush, thinks it is a good idea to keep the option on the table, if only to keep Iran guessing.

Downing Street phoned the Foreign Office several times to ask Mr Straw to stop being so categoric in ruling out a military strike.And the White House also phoned Downing Street to ask why Mr Straw kept saying these things. And that was before Mr Straw dismissed as "nuts" the prospect of a tactical nuclear strike on Iran, an option that Mr Bush subsequently refused to remove from the table.

Margaret Beckett inherits the Iran portfolio. One of her first jobs will be in New York on Monday where she will meet Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state with whom Mr Straw built up such a close relationship, and other counterparts to discuss Iran.

snip

More at link:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ewen_macaskill/2006...

i took this from UK forum. Discussion also going on there.

EDIT: COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST ONLY 4 OR 5 PARAGRAPHS
FROM THE COPYRIGHTED NEWS SOURCE PER DU RULES.

[bananas]

1. Thanks, I should turn the state & country forum options on

Looks like I'm missing some good stuff.
Is the thread? Or are there several threads?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x16433

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. The UK cannot support an attack on Iran.

The day Tony announces his intention to bomb iran is the day the Labour party kicks him out of Downing Street. Furthermore, there is no conceivable way that parliament would support attacking Iran. Tony can talk all he wants, but he can't do anything militarily against Iran without the approval of parliament, which he will never get.

[cornermouse]

3. I used to think that about the Bush and the U.S.

I don't any more.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. The UK isn't like the US.

As much as Tony would like to pretend that he's the President, he isn't. And at the moment he's hanging on by a thread.

[cornermouse]

5. Right....

:eyes:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. Would you care to elaborate?

Which of my statements do you take issue with?

[cornermouse]

7. You haven't been watching the U.S. closely enough have you?

If Blair has the "right" people backing him and the oppposition has been effectively neutered, he will be able to do anything he wants. Never, ever think it can't happen in your own backyard. Five years ago, I would never have imagined any American president capable or able to do what Bush has done. I thought our system had checks and balances. As we have found out, checks and balances only work when someone activates them.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Well...

If Blair has the "right" people backing him and the oppposition has been effectively neutered

The opposition hasn't been effectively neutered. Did you see the results of the local elections in the UK earlier this week? Labour is in trouble, and it is in trouble because of Blair. There's every reason to believe that his own party will call for his head if he doesn't leave reasonably soon.

As we have found out, checks and balances only work when someone activates them.

It is entirely possible that Blair might face a revolt from the armed forces if he attempted to attack Iran. Of course, he can't attack Iran without the approval of Parliament, which he would never get. If he tried to make a move without Parliament's consent, he would be out as PM that very afternoon. The position of Prime Minister in this country is not the same as the US President. Labour will remove Tony if he goes anywhere near attacking Iran.

[cornermouse]

9. Yeh. Right. Whatever you say. It ain't never gonna happen to you...

:eyes:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. This is ridiculous.

You're asking me whether or not it's possible for such a thing to happen. Well, obviously such a thing is possible. But there are requirements for such a thing to happen. An attack on Iran doesn't just miracle itself into existence. The point I have made, which you have chosen repeatedly not to address, is that the current political situation in the UK does not meet those requirements.

Simply saying "Oh, it could happen there, too" over and over again does nothing to make your point more correct.

You idea is wrong. You either do not understand the political situation in the UK at all, or have some problem addressing my points with actual references to the thing we are talking about.

I have no idea why you have chosen to vent your sarcasm and invective at me for disagreeing with you.

[cornermouse]

11. The point I was trying to make that you refuse to recognize

is that no one here realized what Bush was capable of either.

Invective? I realize the internet can be somewhat lacking in the ability to convey actual sentiments especially if you have a dry sense of humor like I do, but if you think I have tried to be abusive in this conversation, you are mistaken. At the most, I have been mildly sarcastic at your belief that you are somehow immune.