Iran War Debate 104

I may not be able to post tomorrow as I am travelling all day from Ramsgate up to St Andrews to take part in a debate, speaking against the motion that “This House Would Resort to War to Prevent a Nuclear Iran”.

The debate will be in Lower Parliament Hall in St Andrews, starting at 19.30 on 17 November. I am sorry I can’t tell you yet who else is participating, because as with all highly topical debates it has been put together as short notice. I view campaigning to prevent the terrible death toll that a war would bring as my top priority at the moment.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

104 thoughts on “Iran War Debate

1 2 3 4
  • Mary

    “I view campaigning to prevent the terrible death toll that a war would bring as my top priority at the moment.”

    Exactly and good on you. Safe journey.

  • Komodo

    Good luck, and give ’em hell. Hope it’s not in Madras College…Werritty’s alma mater…

  • John Goss

    It needs someone with your experience to oppose a motion as, to my mind, ridiculous as this.

  • Fedup

    This war would invoke the Poland scenario, and herald the beginning of WWIII. Despite the fact that the neocon artists have already fought WWIII; destruction of the soviet union. This being a shameless ploy to allay the fears of a global war, and portraying the said global war as the war that was already won. There again the same liars were promising sweets, and flowers offered at the “liberation soldiers”, while they were serenaded with songs, and telling us all; of the cake walk to Baghdad, while they were selling the Iraq war.
    Therefore the same bunch of liars are now talking about a light casualty war, and in this regards the war criminal and mad man Kenneth Timmerman, whom has for years waxed lyrical about the initial phases of Iraq war as costing only two hundred US casualties, then proceeding to portray a rosy outcome from war with Iran. These salesmen of carnage, at all times try to minimise the; costs in lives, funds, opportunity, whist maximising the benefits gained from the war.
    The stupidity and blood lust of these mad bastards, has so far been translated to; economic recession can be made good through war with Iran. Obama can win a second term because of the war with Iran, ad nauseum. The simple fact that Iran unlike Iraq can defend herself, and defend she will, given the destruction that has been wreaked upon the neighbouring states in Iran, based on the fact that every Iranian will be fighting to the death, to avoid the Iraq, Afghanistan fate befalling them, and the resulting carnage will dwarf the numbers of the dead, and injured. As well as the massive costs to the world economy from the disruption of oil supplies.
    Barak is on record about the acceptable numbers of casualties in Israel that he numbers at 500, with the added caveat; “if Israelis stay where they are”, ie no waves of refugees, which will be numbering in million or more emigrating, or the poorer sections moving around in Israel. Fact that we saw in the last Lebanon war the huge waves of Israeli refugees arasing from the war with a militia army, somehow is not remembered by Barak.
    These mad bastards have lost all their faculties, and are in fact trapped in the same echo chamber as that of Iraq, and in the “group think” process, caught up in the most idiotic of cognitive dissonance.
    The stupidity of “existential threat” that hysterical Israelis are screaming, whilst in possession of four hundred nuclear, as well as thermonuclear bombs and their delivery means are a last gasp for a failed, concept that is grasping at the straws, in the hope of further bloodshed would save it, with total disregard to endangering the whole of the planet, for the sake of a few lunatics whom have seem to be in charge.

  • dunno

    Why not take a couple of grenades to see if the audience like being on the receiving end? The generation in the UK that lived through the last world war, who remember the obvious necessity of war, are coming to the end of their lives now. The necessity being that in a political world someone has to pick up the pieces of the mistakes politicians have made.

  • John Goss

    Pity Craig I can’t hear your debate any more than the John Bright event in Birmingham. But good luck. “Drum bun”, as they say in Romania.

  • oddie

    u could suggest israel might attack Ireland. paranoid?

    16 Nov: YNet: Itamar Eichner: ‘Ireland most hostile country in Europe’
    Foreign Ministry accuses Irish government of inciting against Israel. Dublin City Council sponsors display presenting IDF soldiers as ‘Nazi troops’ abusing Palestinians
    Hatred of Israel reaches new levels in Ireland…
    The display joins accusations voiced against Israel at the Irish parliament last week, on the backdrop of claims that Israel “kidnapped”, abused and undressed Irish nationals who took part in a Gaza-bound flotilla stopped by the Israeli army recently…
    But that’s not all. A Facebook group launched about two months ago called for heavy rocks to be thrown at the Israeli Embassy building in Dublin. Anti-Israel elements recently vandalized a Dublin auditorium slated to host a concert by Israeli singer Izhar Ashdot.
    The Facebook accounts of Israeli Embassy officials have been attacked by Irish hackers and, in addition, anti-Israeli elements are attempting to disrupt an Israeli film festival organized by the embassy in Dublin next week.
    “The Irish government is feeding its people with anti-Israel hatred,” an Israeli official argued. “What we are seeing here is clear anti-Semitism.”
    Foreign Ministry sources said Ireland had undoubtedly become the most hostile country to Israel in the European Union, “pushing all of Europe’s countries to a radical and uncompromising approach.” …,7340,L-4149059,00.html

  • technicolour

    In case it’s helpful: an interview with former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley about the recent IAEA report, which is being described by AFP in this way:

    “Last week the IAEA came the closest yet to accusing Iran outright of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, in a hard-hitting report”

    In the interview Kelley says, about the report:

    “You read it and there are so many things in it that just are wrong that it doesn’t really justify anything”


    “This report doesn’t tell you what is happening, it only tells you what happened a long time ago”


    “It should have been much more carefully vetted…we really don’t have much news since 2004”


    “The current report is bolstering hardliners by taking information that is very old about a programme that existed but has been cancelled”

    Kelley adds: “I used to think there was a programme there…I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a nuclear programme, but this report doesn’t get you there”.

  • Fedup

    Nothing to do with Fukushima fission then? Some are looking for the evidence of stuxnet (virus made in US/Israel) shutting down the pumps, which resulted in the Fukushima disaster taking on a far greater proportion.

  • glenn

    The (sadly, personally disgraced) Scott Ritter wrote a rather good book on the subject, “Target Iran”. If we only consider purely selfish reasons and have no interests in the lives or rights of others whatsoever, we have good reason not to attack Iran. They won’t take an attack lying down. This isn’t another Iraq or a defenseless country reduced to third world status, these are the teachers of Hezbollah. We will reap the consequences of a major attack on them for 1000 years – assuming rather rashly that humanity could survive that long.

  • arsalan

    I am counting down, 10, 9, 8, 7 …. .. .

    To when the Zionist trolls, start pasting stuff here about the only way to stop the attack is for us to support the attack.

    How supporting harsh sanctions that starve the population will stop the attack, even though Iraq had harsher sanction in which more starved and it was still attacked.

    About how supporting limited attacks will stop an invasion, even though Iraq was bombed continuously for many years and was still invaded.

    About how the support of an invasion will stop the invasions of further countries, even though the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan haven’t prevented these Zionist Nazis from calling for the invasion of Iran.

    These Zionist Nazis just want who they term as lesser humans, to do their dirty work for them.
    They want the sons of other men to die fighting wars Israel wants fought.

  • Jives

    Have a good trip Craig but realise,also,St Andrews is the most staunch NeoCon,Establishment,and Zionist campus in the UK,as far as i can see.

    I reckon you might just be the token whipping boy up there if you’re not on your toes-which i hope you are.

    St.Andrews,also,has,according to its own blurb,a world-leading Centre for The Study For International Terrorism.

    And the last time i looked at their staff listing you’ll see everything BUT a coloured face there.

    Be alert to a stitch-up please Craig.

  • Dick the Prick

    This Syria thing’s a bit fruity. Have a good ‘un Craig and take sandwiches – there’s nothing more banal than being stood in front of a mass market sandwich purveyor deciding which overpriced, tasteless and utterly insubstantial product to spend your hard earned beer tokens on. Don’t suppose you’re taking your 8 iron with you but if you could at least give a respectful nod to the old course i’m sure the locals would appreciate it.

  • Mary

    The war on IRAQ. More prevarication on the release of the report of the farcical Chilcot Inquiry. Discussions ongoing on releasing confidential government papers including a note that Bliar wrote to Bush on the eve of the assault. Report not expected until at least Summer 2012. YCNMIU.

  • Mary

    Nothing new in this piece, just a reiteration of the part played by the media in the propaganda for war on Iran , namely the Washington Post and the New York Times.
    Big Media’s Double Standards on Iran
    November 15, 2011
    Exclusive: The mainstream U.S. press corps is again pounding the propaganda war drums, this time over dubious accusations of Iran’s secret work on a nuclear bomb. It is a pattern of bias that Robert Parry calls the U.S. media’s worst — and most dangerous – ethical violation.

    By Robert Parry
    Arguably, the most serious ethical crisis in U.S. journalism is the deep-seated bias about the Middle East that is displayed by major American news outlets, particularly the Washington Post and the New York Times.
    When it comes to reporting on “designated enemies” in the Muslim world, the Post and the Times routinely jettison all sense of objectivity even when the stakes are as serious as war and peace, life and death. Propaganda wins out over balanced journalism.
    We have seen this pattern with Iraq and its non-existent stockpiles of WMD; with the rush to judgment about Syria’s supposed guilt in the killing of Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri; with the false certainty about Libya’s role in the Lockerbie bombing; and many other examples of what everyone just “knows to be true” but often turns out isn’t. [For more on these cases, click here.]

  • Ishmael

    Yes, we need to avoid civilian destruction. If propaganda is to be believe smart weapons should not be killing civvies. Apparently they can take out a wheelie bin outside a house. The death of those people is tragic and no words can raise their bodies from the dead.

    There seems to be confusing arguments doing the rounds. Inconsistency, which can Indicate events are not being driven/planned by government but by others. Even without the Gould Werrity implication, I could smell the dead rat every time I turn my heater on.

    Do they want regime change, set the oppressed Iranians free, the oil maybe. Maybe they have bad intel. I am sure Israel will attack Iran. This was known and discussed way back between 2000-2002. It is not a recent development. What has changed is the grinding and incessant drum beat.

    I really would like to blast it all out, but how can you differentiate your stuff from
    The other net waffle. Anyway I can’t I’d probably end up dead. They could always try. I can see a way this can kick of, it would invite the Americans in. America I believe is finding it difficult to fit this in, they require an excuse to get involved. We need to stave this off for as long as possible, it could really happen soon, more likely winter if my sums are right. The Americans want in. Craig, we both know you do not have the clout to stop this. You are trying to stop an event which has already started and cannot be stopped.

  • Komodo

    Re. St. Andrews, The people in the DSS are charming, although the system does not allow them to be much use, and the uni is good at marine science. As regards the rest, the combination of a business-studies emphasis and the unavoidable flavour of golf permeating the town tells its own story.

  • Daisy

    With the anti war feeling running increasingly high and Ron Paul becoming a serious contender for the Presidency they are probably going to need a ‘false flag’ to justify attack.
    Almost certainly a small nuke and I think highly likely that we could be the target.
    London is protected by the square mile but Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow are prime.
    It would mean nothing to those determined on war. 500,000 very expendable Brits – good riddance – save on benefit payments!
    Although any such explosion could be quickly traced back to its origin, by then the internet will have been savaged and nothing but pro war/zionist propaganda will reign supreme.
    David Kellys will be committing suicide as soon as their heads rise above the parapet,
    The other night I was listening to a very rdepressing scenario – from some international commentator very much on our side.
    He is worried that they have a form of computer virus – another ‘stuxnet’ that will stop any Iranian counterstrike.
    He also pointed out the horrific present US doctrine.
    They have the right to first strike anyone they like.
    If that nation then retaliates in any shape or form, however limited, the US reserves the right of nuclear attack.
    This is the monstrous force we have in our midst.
    This is the greatest danger the planet has ever faced.
    The axis of evil without par in the history of the world is the US/UK/Israel.
    You might as well call it greater Israel and be done.

  • Stephen

    Despite what some may think I would happily oppose the resolution – that said I don’t think that the issue of Iran developing the bomb should be ignored – it just that there are so many options that need to be gone into first. Of course the we could ignore the issue and/or think that there is no problem with Iran getting the bomb – and then eventually you leave the “neo cons” with the only remedy on the table.

    If anyone believes that Iran having the bomb is going to make a positive contribution to peace in the Middle East then they really do need to question their sanity.

  • Daisy

    ‘If anyone believes that Iran having the bomb is going to make a positive contribution to peace in the Middle East then they really do need to question their sanity.’

    So you do not believe in the doctrine of ‘MAD’.
    Mutually Assured Destruction.
    Because the Old Soviet state acquired nuclear weapons it ensured the peace for decades.
    It has stopped the US and its barbaric use of nuclear weapons for some 50 years.
    It is that rather then the EU that has maintained the peace in Europe.
    However with the growth of the power of Israel, corporatism the neo con/neo lib insanities. With oter technologies its power to stop militant insanity is weakening.
    North Korea shows that holding even one nuke is an insurance policy.
    Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were examples of what happens when you don’t have a warhead or two.
    Do you not think that the medium powers with resources the west eyes in its greed are not looking at their development.
    Looking at post world war history one could say that owning nukes seems to create peace. Take the Indian/Pakistan rivalry for inatance.

  • Stephen


    No I don’t believe in the doctrine. Is this the theory that underlies suicide bombers??

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.