Yet another anti-Israeli rant from you Corporal Bob. I love your view of international relations: countries must 'understand' why other countries are hostile to them. The cult of victimhood brought to the internation stage. On this reasoning (if one can dignify it with a term suggestive of rationality) Poland circa 1939, had a duty to 'understand' the hostility of Germany.

Sorry, I didn't think being opposed to unnecessary wars automatically qualified someone as being anti-Israeli. I'm sad that you do not think understanding is a useful contribution to internastional affairs.

Can't see where you're coming from Bob.

We bombed Germany to hell and they didn't lay a finger on us. Nothing to do with us at all.

However, the 'British interest'is far reaching and many hard lefties of CND/BNP/UKIP/etc want a big electric fence putting up and Britain to withdraw behind it.

The big bad world can get on with it sort of thing.

'They came for the politicians, then they came for trade unions, then they came for my neighbour and then they......'

I don't expect everyone to understand why people like me want to hit back in a restrained way, if at all possible, but I do expect them to understand that I understand the consequences of not doing so.

Gary

I'm confused, Gary. Last time we discussed this sort of issue you thought nuclear weapons brought peace and security, so shouldn't you be in favour of Iran having them too!

Whether one considers action against Iran necessary or not rather depends on whether one is sitting in one's armchair in Sandwell or (within easy missile range) in Jerusalem.

I suspect you are terribly 'understanding' of Israel's enemies and rather less so of Israel's rights to defend itself, even if that means, as here, aligning yourself with a mad man (and holocaust denier to boot) like Ahmadinejad.

I gather that quip and little gem was circa 1978, approximately 6 Months before Thatcher began to erase society as we know it!

Bob, the whole world does not allow nuclear proliferation. Not me, not the Labour Party nor any other individual party within a reasonable chance of being elected by majority view.

It was not Tony Blair, John Smith or any right wing nutter floating around the 'real Labour Party' that has intruded upon our private grief.

Unilateralism was abandoned by OLD Labour and multilateralism is championed by OLD Labour and we in NEW Labour agree to it.

The whole world, Bob, the whole world.
Iran will break our collective wishes and the UN will demand action unless Israel copy their Osiraq mission (Iraq 1981) and blow their capability out of existence.

An a ct of non- nuclear proliferation,albeit by force.

Gary

Freddie, are people not entitled to be sitting in Tehran, within easy (nuclear) weapon range of Jerusalem, and bbe equally terrified, and therefore equally as demanding of their leaders for this weapon of mass peace that Gary is so proud of.

Gary, you appear to have reduced the whole world to the handful of nations that possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were discarded by South Africa... (when the formerly 'mad' Nelson Mandela became sane) are they now under immediate threat of attack from these 'madmen'. Why do you and so many others long for a lost empire so badly that youi want to tie yourselves on to the coat tails of the US empire?

So when will you start trying to understand America's view of the world!?!

I do understand America's view of the world. Not agreeing with you does not equate to a lack of understanding though, shocking as you may find this conclusion.

Bob, up here in Stoke, the mad left (not to be confused with the crazee left)(or the loons for that matter)have got the Blairites loving the US to a fine art!

The association with the US/New Labour/Atomic Bombs is largely a myth.

Your argument begins to fall apart by using this association to collapse the argument for their existence.

France hates the US more than you, Bob but it has a nuclear capability and it remains uninterested in NATO to boot.

Having a nuclear 'deterrent' or WMD does not neccesarily mean a love affair with George Bush or his desire to unload his paranoia upon an innocent public down below.

This Country is not ready to dissolve itself from the Nuclear Club or the prestige it gains by the threat of incineration.

My feeling is that progress has been made towards this end via an unsuspecting percentage of the voting public that has never seen a Conservative Government.

This may seem odd to you but it is perfectly clear to my small mind.

For the record, I am a Unilateralist (in denial thanks to the 'policy reviews of OLD Labour)

Gary

Gary, France is a member of NATO. Also:
The UK Trident uses US Trident II D5 missiles, which are maintained and tested in the United States.

The UK Trident warhead is closely based on the US Trident W76 warhead and was tested at the US Nevada Test Site.

The UK maintains close links with the US nuclear weapons laboratories, on "stockpile stewardship", ie maintaining and developing nuclear warheads.

The UK relies on US satellite navigation, intelligence and targetting information.

Under the terms of the agreement under which the US provided assistance with Trident to the UK, UK Trident submarines are assigned to NATO to be used for the "defence of the Alliance".

Very independent!

'I do understand America's view of the world. Not agreeing with you does not equate to a lack of understanding though, shocking as you may find this conclusion' (Bob Piper)

I understand the hardline Islamist view of the world, and I think it's mad, shocking as you may find my conclusion I think we should stop the Tehran regime getting nuclear weapons at all costs.

... and I understand the Christian fundamentalist neo-cons too, and I don't think they should have nuclear weapons either, but you see, I'm even handed, I think they're both as likely to start a nuclear war.

Bob, whilst France is a member of NATO, it pulled it's troops out of the NATO military command structure back in 1966!

Perhaps Britain could pull out of the European Union (remember the 1983 Labour manifesto!?!) whilst remaining a member of the common market...

Which is relevant to what, precisely?

I think there are a number of points to be made here, Bob.

Anti Americans within the Labour sphere normally go on about our lack of independance all round, certainly when it comes to Nuclear power and weaponry.

France is quite Independant of everyone, thanks very much and will do what it wants to do regardless.For reasons yet to be made clear, anti Americans fail to make touchdown in claiming British puppetry.They can't make the charge stick.

Being closely aligned does not mean in their pocket.Having US designed Nuclear weapons doesn'r neccesarily mean we can't use them.
In fact it makes great sense to co-operate with each other over use as a further safety catch.

When anti Americans go on about how traitorous people like me are (being gung ho uncle Sam)they also fail to say why they want to have independance over a system they don't actually want!

Would it be to dismantle them? If so, then they should say so and see what the reaction would be to such a massive loss of strategic defence of the realm.

You say we have no further use of them because we have no one to fire them at as all of our enemies have gone away. Where to exactly? Certainly not to Iran.

Gary

If you seriously think that the Iranian regime is as likely to use nuclear weapons as Bush (however dangreous Bush might be), you've seriously lost touch with reality.

When anti Americans go on about how traitorous people like me are (being gung ho uncle Sam)they also fail to say why they want to have independance over a system they don't actually want!

Gary. Your logic is perverse. Sit down and think that through.

Freddie... not very evidence based, that statement. One out of one 'A' bombs to date being the sample.

Bob,

(a) that was 62 years ago;

(b) it was to end the most horrific war the world has ever known.

Your anti-Americanism really knows no bounds does it? Putting Iran and the US on a parity of dangerousness is really, really, deluded.

So, my opposition to the US Government (shared by many US citizens if the mid-term elections are anything to go by) means I am anti-American? So, why are you so anti-Arab? Is it a more defensible position to loath Arabs or something?

How strange that for decades under the hated Shah of Iran, Britain and the US loved Iran.... just like they did Saddam. But threaten their oil interests, and whoosh, in a flash, you are certifiably insane... and all the little sheep trot along mildly nodding their heads.

Baaaaa!

Bob, you want to give up Nuclear Weapons and you seemed to have little concern wether our oil supply is threatened.

This means we may have a country with no Nuclear weapons and no oil.

Why do you dislike my Country so much?
what are your ambitions for Stoke?

Gary

Actually, Gary, I might even change my stance on nuclear weapons... but only for Stoke!

Gary OUR oil supply depends on someone deciding to sell it, not whether or not we want it. There is no birthright which enables the decent people of Stoke on Trent to demand oil from other people.

Ponder on this one for a second. If you were a member of the Iranian government, sitting on the world's 4th biggest oil reserves, would you think it was a good idea to use it yourself, thereby using up your own major asset, or develop alternative methods of energy (nuclear power) and maximise the use of your major asset by selling it abroad?

Bob, you think it is OK for Iran to posess Nuclear Weapons for the justifiable reason that the USA and GB (Gordon Brown!) wants to keep them and upgrade them.

OK I see your logic, even though you think outside of the UN and its Security Council.

Iran wants to develop Nuclear Power for 'electricity purposes only'.

Do you think therefore, it is OK for Tony Blair to promote Nuclear energy via Nuclear power stations (10) for this Country, including Sandwell? Remeber Bob, you are old Labour and are proud of such titles.

ps. Don't send Nuclear bombs to Stoke, please.

I was in Sandwell recently and I can see what damage they can cause!

Gary

Gary, try reading the title strap on the blog. I have no affection for Old Labour if you mean the centre-right social democrats who preceded the right wing new labour crew.

Nice to see you are thinking inside 'the UN and its Security Council'. Presumably you were opposing Blair's war as well as them?

Are you now seriously suggesting we should bomb countries because they want nuclear power stations? You're off your trolley man. The French, who you are fond of quoting, had better hang on to that independent nuclear deterrent then because they seem to have done OK with nuclear power without the US, Israelis or Gary Elsby wanting to bomb them. (I hope).

Bob you appear to be making the rules up as you go along.You can never lose an argument with this method, I do concede.

Firstly, if the Iraq war was illegal, then why did the UN (and its security council) give the nod for one?

Countries that go Nuclear without the UN's approval should expect to suffer the consequences that the UN decides should be in place, be that sanctions or war.

Israel bombed Iraq when it decided to go Nuclear. I'm not too upset about that, I can assure you (It was a French reactor and went unpaid-hence France's objections to the war, not forgetting the backhanders they were receiving).

France and Israel are on the OK list for Nuclear power (so says the UN).

Iran is not and Iran has rejected free Uranium processing by Russia which would have removed any notion of enriching the Uranium that could be used in warheads. Why have they refused this free offer? It's only for 'electricity purposes' when all said and done.

Bob, the hard left in this Country bang on about Blair's illegal wars and UN rules being broken. Usual garbage and nonsense.

Iran is breaking every rule in the book.

Tell me why Blair/USA haters don't want to bomb the hell out of Iran some other minor sanctions that will starve them into the stone age (which is what the UN did to Iraq)?

And your thoughts on 10 Nuclear reactors for this Country, which will deminish our need for Iranian and Iraqi oil?

Old Labour wants it all ways. That's why New Labour has been successful.We don't have double standards.

Gary

Gary:

Point one; They didn't. The resolution was withdrawn because the US and Britain knew they couldn't win it. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Point two; "Iran is not and Iran....' I'm afraid you've got me there, but I always thought it was, at least since we stopped calling it Persia.

Point three; "the hard left in this Country bang on about Blair's illegal wars...". Yes, that Kofi Annan, terrible old trot he is.

But hey, I never raised the UN, you did. It's a clique. What have they done about Israel's nuclear weapons, developed in secret with no international approval or sanctions? You say on one hand Israel is entitled to defend itself (presuming the Iranians are not) and then relate a story of how they bombed Iraq.

I'll tell you why I don't want to bomb the hell out of Iran, because it doesn't work, you clot. Do you think the British response to the blitz was to say, OK, we had better give in then? Do you think Iranian mothers and fathers wouldn't grieve over their children if they died as a consquence of punative sanctions? If you don't, and you and the soft right obviously don't, then you still don't know why we are stuck in a losing war in Iraq.

'If you don't, and you and the soft right obviously don't, then you still don't know why we are stuck in a losing war in Iraq' (Bob)

Come off it, Iran are doing everything they can to keep NATO bogged down in Iraq, they hate the thought of isolation, but are not prepared to play ball with the international community. Russia is just using Iran for leverage with the USA, they are already voting in favour of sanctions, and at the end of the day when the Ruskies have what they want from the US they will leave Iran to the dogs.

Iran would have been far better cooperating with the EU plan regarding their nuclear program. If in 20 years they end up like North Korea they will have only themselves to blame.

Why should they? If they want nuclear power stations like other countries have, why on earth not? What you people seem to be saying is it is OK for us, but we can't trust those little arab fellahs. Well, it's balls. If I was Iranian and the Israelis have a nuclear bomb, I would want a nuclear bomb. Full bloody stop.

Just because Iranians want a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that the international community should allow them to procure one. I'm sure Al-Qaeda would like a nuclear bomb too.

The fact is that the current Iranian regime deal with, and arm, organisations that are classed in the UK as terrorists, such as Hezbollah. We should be dead against a regime that arms our enemies having weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, Iran have the right to develop peaceful civilian nuclear power but they refuse to submit to proper international scrutiny. Now Iran look like they are trying to get the bomb the Saudi's are talking with Pakistan about having one. The Non-prolifirattion Treaty exists for a reason We let the Middle-East get all nuked up now and then in 20 years time when the people over there decide they are fed up of the Ayatollahs, or there is a coup in Saudi Arabia, they end up in the hands of God knows who.

Just because Israelis want a nuclear bomb doesn't mean that the international community should allow them to procure one. The middle east is nuked up... it just so happens you like those that are nuked. You were perfectly happy presumably to let a murdering bastard like Sharon have the weapons.

What makes you decide that 'we' (count me out here) have the right to decide. Try looking it at from something other than your own brainwashed perspective.

"The Non-prolifirattion Treaty exists for a reason"

And the reason is to allow the superpowers to continue to exert military force over other nations.

Bob, people don't normally confuse me but you are doing a good job I must say.

First. You are confusing the UN 'second' resolution (that was not supported) as your reason for the Iraq war to be declared illegal.

Ask yourself why this is therefore not prosecuted?

The reason is that the 'second' resoulution was a patsy that had no chance of being won. Remeber that all of the others on the UN security council were taking backhanders from Saddam. Proven.He was using oil money (intended to buy medicines)to grease the palms of 'friendly' Countries that couldn't give a toss about gassing people.

UN resolutions 678, 687 and 1441(UN Security Council approved) give a clear account and a warning of impending action unless thay are complied with.

There is no basis in UN law that requires a 'second' opinion because the 'first' one is debatable in its intention.

Koffi Annan got it completely wrong and Lord Goldsmith got it spot on.

The Arab world wants Israel 'driven into the sea'. And you want them to possess Nuclear weapons? or at least have nuclear capability that can be enriched?

To convince us of your reasoning of justifiable mutual proliferation or their complete removal by all, you should explain what we should do if Iran breaks the law and proliferates?

Remeber Bob, Iraq and saddam were given 'one last opportunity to comply' and they didn't take it.(Goldsmith asked if they had)and therefore 'all means neccessary' were deployed to force them to comply.

The UN did what it said on the tin (with or without Koffi's personal opinion).

Gary

Israel got nuked up long before I was old enough to comprehend international politics.

Iran was the one nation over there that didn't drive out their Jewish population after the 1948 war. Israel never did anything to Iran, Iran never involved itself in the Arab-Israeli conflicts. Post-revolutionary Iran see shaking their fists at Israel as a way of getting support from the Arabs for their pretentions of being regional top-dog.

Any support they get is based on historical Arab hatred of Israel, just like the support Hitler got from the Grand Mufti was based on their shared hatred of the Jews. Most Arabs don't want a nuclear armed, aggressive Iran on their doorstep exertisng their military influence over peaceful Gulf states.

Gary, you're simply parroting the same nonsense that Blair used as an excuse for a war. Found those WMD's in that resolution yet?

So Saddam had a chance to comply (all he had to do was get rid of those WMD that he didn't actually have).

How come when you argue FOR Trident it is to keep the peace, and when you argue AGAINST Iran having nuclear weapons it is... errm... to keep the peace.

Sorry Gary, I always took you for a more independent thinker, but you sound like just another New Labour clone.

Steven... admit it, you just don't like Arabs.

There are hardly any Arabs in Iran Bob, there are a lot of ethnic groups over there but not many Arabs.

I don't like their government. I don't like most Arab governments either, I think they are barbaric. You never stuck me as a social conservative yourself, I'd be surprised to find out you supported imprisonment for homosexuals, public floggings and widespread use of the death penalty. Why do you think so many Persians and Iraqis have come to live over here?

Strangely, you do strike me as a social conservative so I would have thought it was right up your street.

I'm struggling to see where it is I have supported them though. All I am saying is that if the so-called Western countries (and their strategic capitalist allies) can have nuclear weapons and nuclear power, without any genuine commitment to do what Gary would call multilaterally disarm themselves, why pick on other nations who similarly want that protection. If it is good enough for Britain's defence (or the US interests in Britain to be truthful) then why isn't it good enough for theirs.

All you are doing is reinforcing my original point: they can't have them because they are mad. Why are they mad? Because they threaten our strategic economic interests, that's why. All the rest is just froth.

'Because they threaten our strategic economic interests' (Bob)

Yes Bob, the world revolves around money, the West won the Cold War, I'm sure you were disappointed when the Berlin wall came down, but it happened.

Go ask the people of Eastern Europe, desperate to get into bed with the USA, what they thought of communism. Try asking an Afghan what they think of Russia. Hell, we're not perfect, neither are the USA and neither are Iran. We're a lot better than most of them out there in this dog eat dog world.

Besides, our petroleum oil comes from the Saudi's in exchange for defence technology. I don't see how Iran are directly threatening UK economic interests at the moment, but I can see that they would given half a chance which I why I don't want them to have nukes.

I care about our economy more than Iran's, I'll freely admit that.

I wasn't the slightest bit bothered when the Berlin Wall came down, but you are just throwing in another red herring. My thread throughout this is that I can see no justification for bombing Tehran on the grounds that the Iranian government want to look after their own economic interests or defend their people.

It doesn't matter whether YOU care more about Britain's economy than the Iranian econonmy (so do I), what matters is whether you wish to carry out a genocidal bombing campaign against Tehran in pursuit of those economic goals.

There's no point in continuing this thread because it is obvious you do, and equally obvious that I don't, and neither of us is going to persuade the other irrespective of the number of bling alleys we chase down.

Bob, there you go again!!
You're resorting to the familiar line of 'a Blair clone'.
Why because I and Tony actually think that the UN should mean something?
It is the UN and its Security Council that gave Saddam 'one final opportunity'(not Gary from Stoke-on superior).

Saddam either did, or he did not, have WMD.
Mr. Blix went to look on the UN behalf.

He did not have 'unfettered access' which was a UN demand. A second resolution is not an obligation anywhere in the UN rule book. It was a made up stopper by those on the security council who were on the take.

3 Countries were not taking cash. USA, GB and spain. Like it or not, that was the case.

I go someway against my natural instincts to agree with the UN (lucky them) that their should be non proliferation outside the Nuclear Club. I also agree with them that Iran should be stopped from having them. All UN wishes.

If it is the case that I am a clone for Tone or Gordon or Miliband or whoever (you) choose to lead Labour because they and I support the UN, then so be it.

You lose each time. Old or New Labour, there is only one international law and you appear to be campaigning against it. Why?

You still haven't answered the point: If you want Iran to go nuclear, do you wish Tony and Gordon well in their quest for 10 Nuclear plants. I'm testing a double standard here, Bob.

Blix didn't have unfettered access, but he also said, "I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward (for the invasion)was rapidly falling apart." In his book "Disarming Iraq," Blix said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

You believe international law as laid down by the US and swallowed w3hole by Blair. I'm relaxed about that... I tend to think for myself. Unlike you, I don't accept things just because the high and mighty tell me, but that's why I opposed the Iraq war, and why I was right to do so.

By the way... where are those weapons of mass destruction? Did you get round to telling me?

I answered about nuclear power. I'm, fairly ambivalent to it, as I said, the French seem to do OK with it.

International law by Bush and Blair? I don't think so.
Blix was paid by the UN and later on offered a lot of nonsense.

He was 'unfettered' or he wasn't. Simple.

The UN (not George or Tone) gave Iraq 'one final opportunilty' or it did not.

The UN (not USA or Britain) resolved (1441) to use 'all means necessary' if Iraq failed to comply with Blix, or it did not.

Goldsmith weighed this up by asking if they were indeed offered 'one final opportunity'.

Iraq broke every rule, according to Blix, Tone, Bush, the UN,and all of those MPs who voted (now there's a first)for war.

Please note: I did not have a vote for I am a Tone clone and all the above is 'lies' according to Piers Morgan, the Telegraph and all flip floppers.

Saddam was hanged for crimes against humanity as a result of using gas to kill innocent villagers nowhere near Baghdad.He wanted Nuclear weapons.Iran only wants electricity!

Thank God for the likes of Tone.

Gary

There is so much drivel there it is hard to know where to start.

Blix was pasid by the UN, and like his predecessor he said that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq. Nor was there because it was lies, lies that stupid people like you now want to conveniently forget.

I'll ask you one last time Gary, where are the WMD in Iraq... and I know you won't answer that because you will want to twitter on about resolutions from the UN which said Saddam had to give up the weapons he hadn't fucking got, you twerp!

He was hung because of crimes commited when your mates in the US government, and the British Government, were sipping tea on his white sofa, patting him on the back, and flogging him weapons to fight against Iran.... not for what he was doing when Blair tied himself to Bush's coat tails. They knew about the deaths by mustard gas, but they still kept him as a mate... because it suited them.

Don't be a bloody hypocrite. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I don't want Britain to have them either. You are just a flag waving Imperialist who thinks we can have them because WE can be trusted, but no-one else can... and because the nuclear club run the security council, those are our rules.

Well I don't think so, and I don't give a two-penny fuck if I'm the only person that thinks it, because at least I an thinking for myself.

Try it sometime, it's easier than swallowing other people's shit.

'what matters is whether you wish to carry out a genocidal bombing campaign against Tehran in pursuit of those economic goals' (Bob)

This goes to show how little you understand economics. A NATO/Iran war would rocket oil prices to well over $100/barrel, perhaps $150, and cause high levels of inflation. No one wants a war with Iran. What they want to do is isolate Iran and use high level diplomacy to ensure they do not develop nuclear weapons. It's working, the Ruskies and Chinese are starting to vote with the USA in the security council.

Steven... are you Gary in disguise?

"No one wants a war with Iran."

Go back to jail, do not collect £200. Just read the original post that you have been putting forward stupid arguments about. For your benefit I will repeat "no-one's' observations:

Uzi Arad, former director of intelligence at Israel's spy agency, Mossad, has made a lifetime's study of revolutionary Iran. If international sanctions and diplomatic arm-twisting fail to halt its suspect nuclear activities, he is clear what the west must do: bomb Tehran.

PS. - Surly you mean Ruskies and Chinkies? Why not chuck in the Wops, Wogs and assorted frogs too for good measure? At least it tells me where you are coming from.