US Chief Orders British Troops To Attack Iran

[350HP930]

As if things are not bad enough, what do you all think about starting up a second war against iran right now?

Fortunately for us the british were not stupid enough to be the US' sacrificial cannon fodder used to crank up WWIII.

If our government is already trying **** like this I imagine it won't be long until our government's war plans for iran are under way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/30/wiran30.xml

Attack Iran, US chief ordered British

America's military commander in Iraq ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory, a senior officer has disclosed.

An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels.

"If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," a defence source said yesterday.

"We would have had the Iranians to our front and the Iraqi insurgents picking us off at the rear."

The incident was disclosed by a senior British officer at a conference in London last week and is reported in today's edition of Defence Analysis. The identity of the officer is not given.

"Some Iranian border and observation posts were re-positioned over the border, broadly a kilometre into Iraq," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran.

Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack the Revolutionary Guard positions.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps has 125,000 soldiers, making it 25 per cent larger than the entire British Army, and is equipped with 500 tanks, 600 armoured personnel carriers and 360 artillery weapons.

The incident is reminiscent of the exchange during the Kosovo conflict between the American general, Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe, and Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander.

When Gen Clark told Gen Jackson to send British troops into Pristina airport to prevent Russian troops from taking control Gen Jackson refused. He was reported to have said: "I am not going to start World War Three for you."

The Iran-Iraq incident lasted around a week and was resolved by a telephone conversation between Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Kamal Kharrazi, his Iranian counterpart, British officials said.

"It did look rather nasty at the time," one official said. "But we were always confident it was a mistake and could be resolved by diplomatic means. We got in touch with Baghdad and said, 'Don't do anything silly; we are talking to the Iranians.' "

While Mr Straw was trying to resolve the issue peacefully, British military commanders on the ground were calming their Iranian counterparts, the ministry said.

The Revolutionary Guard was believed to be behind the seizure of eight Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel last week after they strayed across the disputed border between Iraq and Iran.

The eight men, who were delivering patrol boats to the Iraqi riverine patrol service, were released - but not before they were paraded blindfolded on Iranian television.

[Sonic dB]

Piece of advice: Relax...take a deep breath. Go work on your car...take it for a drive... and avoid reading heavily slanted liberal or conservative agenda 'news'.

[araine901]

So Iran sent a bunch of troops over the border in an unanouced military movement and the General in charge told the troops in the area (British) to PREPARE to send troops to stop them. And your point is what? That we should not have reacted to a mobization? Not molbilze troops in that area to set a defensive line so we could begin diplomatic conversations. You cannot speak softly if you do not cary a big stick.

[350HP930]

So, are you saying that the british defied the order for no good reason at all?

So much for the coalition of the 'willing'.

[araine901]

I didnt read where they did defy the request. It didnt say they said no or yes. It didnt say the moved troops in that direction and told them to camp there for a while. The artical said they were asked to prepare for an attack, I did not see where the British said they did not or would not PREPARE for an attack. I did not see in this artical where the Brits did not do exactly what they were asked. Do you?

[350HP930]

I do. Reading comprehension ownes you.

"Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack the Revolutionary Guard positions."

"An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels."

"It did look rather nasty at the time," one official said. "But we were always confident it was a mistake and could be resolved by diplomatic means. We got in touch with Baghdad and said, 'Don't do anything silly; we are talking to the Iranians.' "

"An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels."

[araine901]

I suppose you can twist truth to mean anything you want it to. If reading comprehension owns me. Convoluting reality owns you.

[350HP930]

LOL, you, pot, kettle, black . . .

[araine901]

All I am saying is the article you quoted does not give sufficient evidence that an order was given to attack and the same order denied. It merely says that they were ordered to prepare to attack. It is never once stated in the article that this was or was not part of General Sanchez¡¦s plan. You assume it wasn¡¦t I assume neither of us know because this is only a sliver of the story and may or may not even be true. My caution is that you set aside your partisanship and distain for the military and this administration and try to be objective about what you read. Who knows people might end up taking you serious if you didn¡¦t seem like such an angry partisan troll (that was meant with love)

[kach22i]

Originally posted by araine901
All I am saying is the article you quoted does not give sufficient evidence that an order was given to attack and the same order denied.

Good point, in that case may I suggest that you do a search on Google (to support your case). It could provide you (and us) with clearer information based on/ from multiple sources. Taking any one souce is like faith...............I have little faith in the press these days.

Good thing cooler heads prevailed...............always be prepared.

[lendaddy]

It has nothing to do with the source. The stories title is dfferent than what is in it's body. Title= "Orders attack" body= "prepare for attack". Big difference.

[araine901]

Come on Len, Dont let truth get in the way.


kach22i: I looked on Google and all of the text of the story seems to be the same in all of them. Can you direct me to something specific so I can be educated?

Somehow I dont think we are getting the whole story. Why were the Iranians so keen to take the boats and saliors of thier diplomatic buddies?

[350HP930]

Apparantly the boat incursion occured long after the border dispute and resolving a border dispute diplomatically does not give england a blank check to make incursions into iranian territory.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2004_pg4_12

[kach22i]

There are always going to be border skirmishes, heck I know a Green Bert who was shot/wounded in Korea in the 1990's. His father was a lerp (recon patrol performed by leg) in Vietnam, don't get me started on the disapearing borders there.

Here is fuel for thought:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1105-02.htm

[ronin]

from where do you draw the conclusion that anyone was giving England a blank check to enter Iranian terrritory, or that there was any desire on England's part to do so?

[araine901]

"from where do you draw the conclusion that anyone was giving England a blank check to enter Iranian terrritory, or that there was any desire on England's part to do so?"

I think it depends what frequency you have your tin foil hat tuned to.

I am sure they are isolated incendets and have nothing to do with each othter.

[350HP930]

Originally posted by ronin
from where do you draw the conclusion that anyone was giving England a blank check to enter Iranian terrritory, or that there was any desire on England's part to do so?

Originally posted by araine901
Why were the Iranians so keen to take the boats and saliors of thier diplomatic buddies?

[araine901]

350: Is there a point to you last post. I am rather dense and need the help connecting imaginary dots.

Kach: Yes I am well aware of border issues with a bother who spent 20 years in the border patrol and now HLS I have heard many stories. One of my other brothers when stationed in Korea did many "training excercises" into north korea. Of course they were not allowed to where US uniforms or US weapons or anything that could identify them as us. their ID and dog tags were taken from them before they left to make sure they did not end up in NK. The point is border incursions are nothing new, your are correct. But if you send regualar army across the border you better expect someone to notice and possobly shoot at you. To not order troops to ready themselvs for a possible attack would be a deriliction of duty and just plain ignorant. Until the troops were posted on "locked and cocked" and they called the Irainian embasy and asked WTF, how did they know where they were going to stop. I dont think the lets just wait and see what they are going to do and wait until the pull up to Bagdad would work. And yes, the fear of being next just might keep Iran in line. I dont think they need to be next we are killing there terrorists by the dozen each day in Iraq.

[fintstone]

Frankly, if we wanted to take out some Iranian troops, we would not have to ask Great Britian to do it for us. Duh. Asking that they prepare themselves after noting a foriegn army had crossed the border is only prudent. The rest is just another silly story where words are twisted into anti-american political propaganda that only a fool would give any credance to.

[CamB]

Seems to me more like drawing a distinction between the British way (a phone call) and the American way (mobilise lotsa troops in the hope that the threat of an attack scares them off).

Ariane/Len - the logical conclusion of "preparing to attack" is to attack. It is not the same as "preparing to defend".