Syria and Iran? cloud cuckoo land!
 

So the CDS has said that contingency plans are in place should military action be needed in Syria or Iran, what planet are they on?
Why do we insist in gobbing off without the might to back it up? the Empire and our role of serious world policeman has LONG since gone so why do we still pretend?
A tiny and purely political military force backing up the US in any strike against Iran is all we are capable of, time to wake up to realities.

Perhaps someone could suggest he reads the memoirs of one of his predecessors - Field Marshal The Viscount Slim KG, GCB, GCMG, GCVO, GBE, DSO, MC.

Must be have been as quiet afternoon in Jayand's world, hence the vitriolic reaction to a bit of contingency planning (contingency planning goes on in the background 'just in case' and seems to be a sensible precaution to me).

I am unclear as to why this contingency planning is considered to be 'gobbing off' and as I have not had sight of the plans I cannot comment on the level of 'might' that could be involved. Does the plan include reference to us (UK) 'backing up the US in any strike against Iran'? I dont know and I doubt if the OP does either.

It's a free country (apparently) and the OP is entitled to his opinion. And so am I :)

Perhaps the plans are more to do with evacuating the vast number of British citizens in nearby countries than dropping bombs on Iran?

Spectre, I don't think vitriolic is quite the word you were looking for.
Just think we need to re-appraise our standing in the world, some people think it is far greater than it actually is.

Hague: Not considering Iran military action at the moment


Published: 11.14.11, 11:13 / Israel News
</SPAN>

P{margin:0;} UL{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-right: 16; padding-right:0;} OL{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0;margin-right: 32; padding-right:0;} H3.pHeader {margin-bottom:3px;COLOR: #192862;font-size: 16px;font-weight: bold;margin-top:0px;} P.pHeader {margin-bottom:3px;COLOR: #192862;font-size: 16px;font-weight: bold;}</B>Britain does not exclude military action against Iran in the long term failing progress on its controversial nuclear program, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Monday.

Asked whether military action was possible, Hague said: "We are not considering that at the moment. We are not calling or advocating military action. At the same time we say all options should remain in future." (AFP)

Did any of you see Condaleeza Rice's interview with Andrew Marr on sunday. She specifically said that military action aga9inst Iran should be contemplated if they will not heed UN Resolutions. She was quite scary.

I'm afraid I didn't take any of his remarks to Andrew Marr seriously. I have never heard such an Army centric view of the world considering the recent end of a relatively successful Libyan campaign. Great as CGS but in his current role, it was pitiful. The Navy and the RAF finally got a mention after most of the interview had finished and he'd defended axing a further few of the remaining 6 Brigades (85k by 2018 IIRC). As for the thought of a further campaign with the current Army force structure............. well.

Standing by.

Did she mention the UN resolution on Israel that they have ignored for years and is she advocating bombing Israel ?

Well, she's out of politics per se and in academia, so maybe interesting views but probably little real influence on the current suite of decision makers.