You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
New report says military attack on Iran would be disastrous
2007-02-05
A military attack on Iran could unleash disastrous consequences for the Middle East and the wider world, a coalition of unions, faith groups and think tanks warned in a report released Monday. The document, "Time to Talk," said a military strike, which many believe is being planned by the United States, could further destabilize neighboring Iraq, undermine hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace and embolden hard-liners in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government. It said an attack on oil-rich Iran could also drive up fuel prices, harming economies around the world. "The possible consequences of military action could be so serious that governments have a responsibility to ensure that all diplomatic options have been exhausted," the report said. "At present, this is not the case."

The report was compiled by 17 groups, including the Amicus and GMB trade unions, aid agency Oxfam, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Foreign Policy Centre, a left-leaning think tank. Among the document's backers is Sir Richard Dalton, British ambassador to Iran between 2002 and 2006. Dalton acknowledged the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions, but said "recourse to military action — other than in legitimate self-defense — is not only unlikely to work but would be a disaster for Iran, the region and quite possibly the world."
"A very bad idea, indeed. Somebody might get hurt."
He urged the United States to show "firmness, patience and a commitment to diplomacy" in dealing with Iran.
Posted by:Fred

#34  lol, FOTS. Kinda like "New" Mexico, eh?
Posted by: BA   2007-02-05 22:03  

#33  Truely.
Posted by: Jamble Gleart5414   2007-02-05 20:32  

#32  Dyslexia is vrey common in upper percentile intelligence, jsut ask GWB.
Posted by: john   2007-02-05 20:06  

#31  "teh" ....yep, I'm enormously guilty of that one...
Posted by: Frank G   2007-02-05 19:10  

#30  SOGA is just south of Georgia...hang a left where the old school house used to be.
Posted by: Phineter Thraviger   2007-02-05 17:46  

#29  lol, "Speach": (noun) a pronouncement given in front of an audience at a location in South Georgia (State in the United States of America).

There's a state (State) in the United States of America called South Georgia?

Did they add one since yesterday or have I been asleep a long time longer than I thought I was?

I know of a state named Georgia, but cannot recollect a South Georgia...


Posted by: FOTSGreg   2007-02-05 16:56  

#28  First it was the loss of free speach, then the loss of the rite to bare arms and freely dissemble. What next?
Posted by: Shipman   2007-02-05 15:47  

#27  And all this time, I thought teh was an internet abreviation of the. It's prolly just a typoe.
Posted by: wxjames   2007-02-05 15:19  

#26  Potatoe
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-02-05 15:13  

#25  OH, and I noted that the only "faith group" mentioned was the Muslim Council of Britain. I'd assume the MCoB is much like CAIR is here in the States. How "truthy."
Posted by: BA   2007-02-05 15:04  

#24  lol, "Speach": (noun) a pronouncement given in front of an audience at a location in South Georgia (State in the United States of America).

I nominate this one as the new word of the Year. Kinda like "truthiness" last year, eh?
Posted by: BA   2007-02-05 15:03  

#23  #22 ...

I'm well aware of the collective memory of Rantburgia. I'm also only human, and prone to making mistakes myself. If I was repeatedly doing something...oh, like spelling "speech" as speach, or "definitely" as definately, I would hope that someone would gently and humorously clue me in so I wouldn't continue to make myself look stupid.

So sorry for the run on sentence! 8-)
Posted by: Omolurt Elmeaper6990   2007-02-05 14:44  

#22  OE 6990: I would caution you that the collective memory of Rantburgia is very long; and I hope you don't become one the 'Hundreds served.'
This has been a public service announcement......
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2007-02-05 14:34  

#21  War is not good for NGO's, commie unions, faith groups, Muslim fronts, lefty think tanks and other living things.
I saw it on a poster once.
Posted by: tu3031   2007-02-05 14:14  

#20  The longer this idiocydiplomacy goes on, the surer I am that the opponents of military action against Iran actually want Iran to get the bomb - cf. ChIrak's freudian slip the other day, and the increasing rate of op-eds and studies saying Iran with nukes could be contained.
Posted by: xbalanke   2007-02-05 14:08  

#19  ...Bush should give a speach against...


"Speach" is not a word! The word is: "speech."

Helping one illiterate doofus at a time! Hundreds served.
Posted by: Omolurt Elmeaper6990   2007-02-05 14:02  

#18  @DaveD: after they've had a university educayshun under ZaNuLabour...

Ignore these dolts!! (Oh, I see you have already. Carry on).
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2007-02-05 13:15  

#17  Frozen Al, your off-topic comment was brilliant.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-02-05 12:34  

#16  Anyone with a pea for a brain can see what is really at stake.
The end of Islam ?
Posted by: wxjames   2007-02-05 12:08  

#15  It WOULD be disastrous. It might delay the Islamic takeover of Europe by several decades. Not only that, but if Bush is successful, the Left would have to go into their back yards and eat green worms.

OT
Am I the only guy who thinks Bush should give a speach against eating rat poison? Then the Left, in defiance of anything Bush says . . .

Al
Posted by: Frozen Al   2007-02-05 10:14  

#14  WTF? Most Iranians are well aware that the Ayatollahs are looting the national treasury. The fact that the tyrants need to operate fascist storm troopers - Basijis - proves fear of the people.

http://www.edume.org/
Posted by: Sneaze   2007-02-05 10:10  

#13  Won't the run-up in energy prices reduce global warming? Come on, lefties, get on board!
Posted by: Perfesser   2007-02-05 09:58  

#12  I think a broken Iran would make the area safer, since it is Iran sponsoring 50-60% of terrorism anyway. The Saudis do most of the rest.

Hey, nuke Saudi while we are at it!
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-02-05 09:18  

#11  I find this part interesting:

"recourse to military action — other than in legitimate self-defense — is not only unlikely to work but would be a disaster for Iran, the region and quite possibly the world."
..Just a couple days ago an American diplomat publicly and clearly invoked that part of the UN Charter that states every nation has the right to military action in legitimate self defense. Makes me wonder what kind of pretzels the UN and the Usual Suspects will twist themselves into to deny us that.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2007-02-05 08:55  

#10  further destabilize neighboring Iraq
How could it be further destabilized (except perhaps by...IRAN)?
undermine hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace
Bwahaha! Let's see...0 - 0 = ?
embolden hard-liners in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government
Are there harder-liners than Nutjob?
drive up fuel prices, harming economies around the world
Wait a second, low fuel prices would drive up global warming!
How can they put out this drivel with a straight face?
Posted by: Spot   2007-02-05 08:46  

#9  The report comes from the tin foil hats folks--Muslim Council of Britain, Oxfam, left-leaning think tank, etc.

Bombing is an option and Iran has to know that. A nuclear armed Iran is a very dangerous Iran to the region and to the West.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-02-05 08:35  

#8  Crap. Leave em' Rockin and a Rollin'.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-02-05 07:51  

#7  Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
Bomb Iran, Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
Leave Rockin and a Rollin
Rockin and a Reelin, Bomb Iran.
(Music courtesy of the Beach Boys song Barara Ann.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-02-05 07:50  

#6  Used to be, left-wing groups issued "communiqués"; when did they switch to issuing "reports"?
Posted by: Dave D.   2007-02-05 06:10  

#5  The NYT's and BBC's usual suspects and friends are saying this. Anyone with a pea for a brain can see what is really at stake.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2007-02-05 05:46  

#4  a coalition of unions, faith groups and think tanks warned in a report

Ah, yes. The experts on the subject.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-02-05 05:29  

#3  Lest we fergit, LUCIANNE/OTHER > SURRENDER TO WEAK[ER] NATIONS; + WAFF.com > CHIRAC WILLING TO ACCEPT IRAN WID SEVERAL NUKES???, + CHIRAC> TO SURRENDER OR FIGHT, + AYMAN ZAWAHIRI remark > USA IS SAFE AS LONG AS NOTHING HAPPENS TO RADICAL ISLAMISTS.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-02-05 00:48  

#2  Twist the Magic Kingdom's arm....get the price of oil down to $40 per barrel for the next 2 years...continue to cut off those who are building infrastructure in Iran...order popcorn and wait for the internal fireworks.
Posted by: anymouse   2007-02-05 00:28  

#1  That convinced me! Bomb! Bomb! Iran!

Of course these people don't mention what would happen in Iran develops a nuclear weapon... oh.. I forget the victims would only be jooos... (at least at first) so they don't care...
Posted by: CrazyFool   2007-02-05 00:05  

00:00