There is a huge difference between urging to keep the military option “on the table” and actively advocating imminent military action.

SWLiP on February 23, 2007 at 9:04 AM

Agree, but go read the original UK news articles. Blair is saying no military option in Iran, period. It’s off the table for the UK.

America, Britain & Israel should immediately start formulating plans to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.

uptight on February 23, 2007 at 4:14 AM

I read the UK articles (linked from Drudge) this morning. They are bad enough; the report Prime Minister Blair worrying out loud that Bush may actually take military action against Iran. Blair is opposed to any military action — so good luck getting his even-more-liberal likely successor to go along with a strike.

The most disturbing part was reading the comments section at the end. All but one were filled with anti-US hatred. One UK writer actually wrote, “come on China, hurry up and challenge the US.”

Don’t count on the UK for anything any more. Think of them as France or Germany.

I’m not anxious to get into an all-out war with Iran either. But no sane person could possibly consider a military response “off the table,” considering the current Iranian leadership.

After this, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the U.N. exists purely for the protection of tyrants and to give second string countries political influence on the world.

It must now, yet again, be bypassed in order to protect this planet from evil.

America, Britain & Israel should immediately start formulating plans to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.

And to the future, afterward, the unborn lives, meant to be, but snuffed out by the evaporation or slow death by radiation of their parents, well, you’re probably better off…

(no more crickets chirping, there are none left)

Someone should ask Pelosi if we can defend ourselves, if attacked.

The move will help the Democrat party.

Once again, the “international community” shows it’s concern for the spread of weapons of mass destruction by insuring the compliance of IAEA restriction in UN member countries through the use of international sanctions against those countries that refuse to abide by IAEA rules and regulations.

I wonder how long it will take before the MSM blames it all on Bush?

UN deadline for Iranian nuke compliance passes

This is about as newsworthy as saying sky is blue. Did anyone seriously expect any other outcome?

Followed by, “We really mean it this time” letter.

Which will bring about the “We’re not kidding!” letter.

Followed by the “You think we’re joking, don’t you?” letter.

I am confused on one thing. If the Quds Force, which is part of the Iranian gov’t, gives weapons and support to the Iraqi insurgents, isn’t that in fact evidence of the Iranian gov’t providing support to the Iraqi insurgents?

OK, I’m not really confused.

We can see this coming so clearly but there doesn’t seem to be anything to be done about it. Russia, China, and France are using Iran as a proxy to attack the interests of the United States.

Although sad, it may bring a measure of satisfaction to see Russian, Chinese, and French frustration when there is something they want, like condemnation of Israel after they retailiate for being attacked, and being vetoed by the United States again, and again, and again.

That’ll show Ahmadinejad.