BS: The coming war with Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 07:17 AM

akenaton (19 Feb 06 - 04:03 AM)

Have you actually bothered to read what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires of it's signatories, or is that sort of thing just too tedious for you? If you did bother to read it, you, like the head of the IAEA would have come to the conclusion that Iran has not complied with it's obligations under that treaty. So exactly where does Mr. Pilger get off by saying that they have, I would tend to believe Mohammed AlBaradei's 'take' on the subject before I would ever believe any Fleet Street Hack with an agenda. That I believe is based on common sense and logic.

Exactly what "evidence" has come into the public domain since bush claimed "victory"??

I agree wholeheartedly that the "actual decision to go to war had been taken previously" there was no other reason for parking 250,000 troops on Iraq's borders during the latter part of 2002. Their presence and the signals given by that move was the only thing that prompted Saddam Hussein into inviting the UNMOVIC inspection teams back into Iraq - Even Hans Blix acknowledges that - you somehow can't, based on what? I most certainly do not know, and I don't think you know either, apart from your own preconceived notions.

As far as the people of the United States of America and the United Kingdom being fooled. At present the only person trying to fool them is John Pilger. It is rather odd that Mr. Pilger doesn't comment on the French, German, Russian and Chinese perspective on what is currently happening in Iran - Probably not "cool", "populist" or "trendy" enough.

Who were Chirac's remarks about use of nuclear weapons addressed to Akenaton? And more important why? I see you chose not to comment on them.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 04:03 AM

Its all been said very succinctly by Little Hawk.
Its about opinions. You believe John Pilger to be talking crap because what he says dosen't fit in with your ideology, I tend to believe the opposite for the same reasons.

The "facts" used to take us to war in Iraq should make any sensible person wary of following the line promoted by the UK/USA govts.

Your refuting of the points made in Pilgers article simply don't make sense, you are only parroting the Bush /Blair official line without taking into account evidence which has come into the public domain since bush claimed "victory"

The "Forsaking Diplomacy" point is a typical example, Bush and Blair keeping up a pretense of diplomacy when the actual decision to go to war had been taken previously.

I am more optimistic about Iran as I dont believe the American people will allow themselves to be fooled again.
If they or the UK public do sanction another war in the Middle East they certainly can't use the excuse that they were misled when the chickens come home to roost...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 02:58 AM

Doesn't alter the fact that Pilger is taking crap Akenaton

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:09 PM

Doug, you must not have read all the links I posted since the beginning of this thread. They represent a variety of views, some in favour of military action against Iran, and some not. Some claiming that Iran is a real threat, some saying that is not so.

Given the fact that I don't know for sure which of these views is the more realistic, I'm interested in any and all views on the subject. I do think a war is coming with Iran, but I'm not sure if it will be simply in the form of air attacks or a full scale invasion. Then again, there may be no such war coming.

I just don't know.

I suggest to you and to all other people...don't be so 100% sure that your particular bias on the matter is all there is to say about it. I'm biased, no question, but I do not claim to be 100% sure that my view of it is the only right one. By no means! We are all forming opinions based on what other people tell us, and those people are most likely fallible, just like we are, and prejudiced, just like we are.

None of us will know for sure until after it happens...if it does. Even then we won't know all the facts.

You note that I put a question mark behind "The coming war with Iran" (?) That means...is it coming? or is it not? And if so, why? And if not, why?

I view everything I hear about it as questionable. (whether or not I tend to agree with the writer)

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 06:32 PM

L.H.: I think you make the same error Amos does when he posts anti-Bush stuff on his thread. The stuff he posts, and the blog you posted are clearly anti-administration (U.S.). Sure the folks that think like you do will agree with the writer, but those who think otherwise will view the information as, well, questionable. I think one must keep in mind that when a blogger posts a message he/she is merely stating opinion. It is not always fact.

Therefore, Anon, I would not suggest that you encourage your sons to migrate to Canada just yet.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 01:48 PM

Strange how Teribus always reminds me of Arthur McBride's recruiting sergeant, continually wheedling and cajoling us old boys on Mudcat.
Always trying to persuade us "hayseeds" that war is not such a bad thing at all....

"With three operational SSBN's it would not matter how many nuclear weapons Iran had, because any use of such a weapon against Israel, directly, or a-symetrically by Iranian useage of any one of the numerous terrorist groups it supports, would result in the total destruction of Iran. Actually I do not believe that they would have to go that far, the cities of Tehran, Bandar Abbas and Quom would be sufficient."........   A statement almost Pythonesque in its idiocy!

Sergent Teribus , Corporal Keith and that "wee little drummer" Doug should remember what befell their predecessors on their "way tae the fair in the mornin'".

Despite all his huffing and puffing about facts and figures, Teribus's attempt to belie John Pilger's article contains none.
He is like the rest of us here....A wee old man with an opinion!!

Thankfully most polls worldwide suggest that not many people agree with his opinion.
Most of the people who supported the war have changed their stance, only the bloodthirsty or the deluded remain in that camp.

Time to "pitch their weapons far intae the tide...and the Devil go wae them, if ever we see them returning"....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:17 AM

Apologies, correction to my last post:

"Note: Hey John, B$2.9 or 6% that was the contribution of the US, Germany and Britain - That 6% must have been awfully important for it to have stuck in your memory like that. Just think the US, Germany and the US only just managed to give Saddam more than France."

Should of course read:

Note: Hey John, B$2.9 or 6% that was the contribution of the US, Germany and Britain - That 6% must have been awfully important for it to have stuck in your memory like that. Just think the US, Germany and the US only just managed to give Saddam more than Brazil, only one tenth of that given by Russia and one third of that given by France.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:23 AM

akenaton, in his post of 17 Feb 06 - 07:06 PM, quotes from an article, "The Next War: Crossing the Rubicon" by John Pilger. In which there are rather a large number of highly charged statements that one could call to task on the grounds of accuracy, objectivity and truth. But no-one has ever accused Mr. Pilger of being objective, he has an axe to grind and articles and books to sell. Mr. Pilger is an "investigative" journalist with an agenda of his own, who declines to look at any subject from any other perspective than the one he selects in the hope that it will get him noticed and be financially rewarding. If, on the strength of this quoted passage, Akenaton wishes to purchase anything written by Mr.Pilger, then more fool him. It would however be interesting to find out when the article was written.

To Mr. Pilger I would make the following comments with regard to his article:

- To the accusation of having "subverted the laws of the civilized world". I would ask what laws have been subverted?
- Blair "lied and lied". I would point out to Mr.Pilger that a number of Inquiries on the subject have concluded otherwise.

Let's look at the "Pilger" perspective:
- Britain exported terrorism to Iraq? - ridiculous proposition, if any here doubt that, let them go and ask any who suffered under Saddam's regime.
- "scandalously reneged on Britain's most sacred international obligations". Now what would those be? Mr. Pilger does not bother to elaborate upon them. But it does rather beg a question that I would like the 'Pilger' take on. Do "Britain's most sacred international obligations" take precedence over the UK Government's obligation and responsibilities to the United Kingdom - I rather think not, Mr. Pilger.
- "forsaken diplomacy", Mr. Pilger charges Blair with having done so in respect to Iraq. And ridicules Mr. Blair for stating that Iran has "forsaken diplomacy". Taking a look at the track record with regard to Iraq, Iraq would have appeared to reneged on all it agreed to do at Safwan and failed to co-operate when given a final chance to do so. Mr Blair kept the diplomatic avenue open for as long as it could be kept open. Ultimately the issue had to be resolved without doubt and that required intervention by armed forces. Mr. Pilger if diplomacy was forsaken it was forsaken at the last resort. Now take a look at the charge of having "forsaken diplomacy" levelled against Iran. In the time that this has been in the public eye, how many times has Iran walked away from, or refused, talks. How many offers have been made to Iran in order that this issue can be settled, how many offers or counter-proposals have been made by Iran.   

PILGER: "Like the invasion of Iraq, an attack on Iran has a secret agenda that has nothing to do with the Tehran regime's imaginary weapons of mass destruction." This is Pilger opinion presented as though it were fact. What was the "secret agenda" in Iraq John? What is the "secret agenda" in Iran? Pilger introduces the lie that maybe Washington believes that Iran has weapons of mass destruction, whereas the whole row is centred upon whether or not Iran is working towards acquiring nuclear weapons, and those concerns have been voiced world-wide. The IAEA came to it's own conclusions Mr. Pilger without coercion from anyone, because Iran failed to comply with its obligations under the terms of the nuclear NPT (Mr. Pilger ignores that for some reason). Oh yes the attack on Iraq in 1991, lets see, no mention of Iraq having invaded Kuwait, no mention of Iraq threatening to invade Saudi Arabia - I suppose Mr. Pilger as an honest, objective reporter, thought that those factors were unimportant.

The undoubted fact reported by Mr. Pilger in this article is that, "Iran offers no "nuclear threat.", well it doesn't at present Mr. Pilger and that is a situation that most want see remain the case. It is widely believed by many closely involved that the Iranian view is markedly different.

The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly said his inspectors have found nothing to support American and Israeli claims. Apart from clear evidence that for the last eighteen years Iran has conducted work on it's nuclear programme in secret in contravention of the terms and conditions of the nuclear NPT to which Iran is a signatory. So Mr. Pilger your statement that Iran "has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty" is uttter nonsense at least and a deliberate misrepresentation at worst.

On inspections Mr. Pilger, you specifically mention the US and Israel. Come on John, let's not be shy, are inspectors allowed to "go anywhere and see anything" in China? North Korea? Russia? France? United Kingdom? India? Pakistan? - Somehow don't think so John.

Not wishing to point out the obvious Mr. Pilger but Israel refuses to recognise the nuclear NPT because it, unlike Iran, is not a signatory. Could Mr. Pilger explain why anyone should recognise and abide by an agreement that they themselves have not agreed to?

According to Mr. Pilger Israel has "between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons targeted at Iran and other Middle Eastern states" Really John!!! This you know for fact? Personally I do not believe what Mr. Pilger says. I believe what most believe, that it is almost certain that Israel has a nuclear weapons capability, incidently born from a peaceful nuclear industry. As to the extent of Israel's arsenal and means of delivering those weapons, I can only guess - exactly as Mr. Pilger can only guess. Do not report your opinions as fact Mr. Pilger, because facts they are not.

The "voluntary confidence-building measures" that Iran agreed to came about because Iran got caught out. Its eighteen year old secretive programme of development was exposed to the IAEA and the world. Iran then agreed to put seals on equipment and facilities it should never have had if Iran had been complying with the terms and conditions of the nuclear NPT as Mr. Pilger says they were - You were wrong John.

The US and Britain menaced Iran for fifty years? - Hardly John, unless you mean with investment up until 1979.

Saddam's attack on Iran was encouraged and supported by the US and Britain? Anybody else involved there John? Recently declassified US intelligence papers explored both the domestic and foreign implications of Iran's apparent (in 1982) victory over Iraq in their then two-year old war shows how US was behind the prolonged conflict to keep Iran from winning the war for numerous reasons which were against the interests of the US.

- "Western support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war has clearly been established. It is no secret that the United States, the Soviet Union, West Germany, France, many western companies, and Britain provided military support and even components of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction program (see reference to dual use items below)"

- "Much of what Iraq received from the West, however, were not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology— mainframe computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications."

- The source of Iraqi arms purchases between 1970 and 1990 (10 % of the world market during this period) are estimated to be:
Soviet Union........................B$19.2 or 61% of total
France.................................B$5.5 or 18% of total
People's Republic of China...B$1.7 or 5% of total
Brazil...................................B$1.1 or 4% of total
Egypt...................................B$1.1 or 4% of total
Other countries....................B$2.9 or 6%(See Note)
Total comes to.....................B$31.5

Note: Hey John, B$2.9 or 6% that was the contribution of the US, Germany and Britain - That 6% must have been awfully important for it to have stuck in your memory like that. Just think the US, Germany and the US only just managed to give Saddam more than France.

Sorry Mr. Pilger - You're talking rubbish, that does not even stand up to cursory examination and challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 08:30 PM

Well, I lean much more to the side that blames the great colonial powers (Britain officially, USA unofficially) and the Israelis for the situation...while I do recognize that the fundamentalist rulers of Iran are loose cannons in their own right. But what gets to me is...you can't talk reasonably to a lot of people about such issues. You can't get them to look at it evenhandedly, because they are so wedded to their notion of who the "good guys" are that it colours everything they see in black and white.

It's not that simple.

Iran has been treated in an abominable way in recent history by Britain and the USA. It is not surprising that they now are under a government that is hostile toward the interests of Britain and the USA in that region.

Neither side is composed of a cadre of angels or of nice people who want to help establish universal brotherhood and equality. They are both simply playing to win the game, as they see it.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 08:27 PM

Isreal- 130 nukes

Iran- 0 nukes

Syria- 0 nukes

Lebenom- 0 nukes

Iraq- 0 nukes

Egypt- 0 nukes

Jordon- 0 nukes

Saidi Arabia- 0 nukes

Total nukes in Middle East- 130...

If I'm not Isreal, considering what has just occured in Iraq, I want either a nuke or an assurance that someone with one will protect me...

Ain't all that complicated...

And, yes, this could be a great opportunity for the US to shine but... wrong foriegn policy wanks...

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 08:23 PM

Sittin' on the fence again George? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 08:11 PM

And that's the alternative viewpoint of the whole thing. ;-)

You see, either viewpoint sounds perfectly credible as long as you accept the its basic proposition...that the guys it identifies as the bad guys really ARE the bad guys. And everything else just automatically flows from there...

That is why people with opposing viewpoints can't agree on these things, and probably never will.

To put it simply: one group thinks the USA, Britain, and Israel are the bad guys, because they are out there building empires, and don't care who they step on to do it.

The other group doesn't see that at all, thinks the USA, Britain, and Israel are representing goodness and progress and are under attack by vicious religions fanatic scoundrels.

Either side will always find plenty of real evidence to back up their claims....and they WILL not respect or countenance the view of the opposing side. That's partisanship.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 07:06 PM

From John Pilger...
The Next War: Crossing the Rubicon
by John Pilger
Has Tony Blair, the minuscule Caesar, finally crossed his Rubicon? Having subverted the laws of the civilized world and brought carnage to a defenseless people and bloodshed to his own, having lied and lied and used the death of the hundredth British soldier in Iraq to indulge his profane self-pity, is he about to collude in one more crime before he goes?

Listen to Blair in the House of Commons: "It's important we send a signal] of strength" against a regime that has "forsaken diplomacy" and is "exporting terrorism" and "flouting its international obligations". Coming from one who has exported terrorism to Iran's neighbor, scandalously reneged on Britain's most sacred international obligations and forsaken diplomacy for brute force, these are Alice-through-the-looking-glass words

Like the invasion of Iraq, an attack on Iran has a secret agenda that has nothing to do with the Tehran regime's imaginary weapons of mass destruction. That Washington has managed to coerce enough members of the International Atomic Energy Agency into participating in a diplomatic charade is no more than reminiscent of the way it intimidated and bribed the "international community" into attacking Iraq in 1991

Iran offers no "nuclear threat." There is not the slightest evidence that it has the centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to weapons-grade material. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly said his inspectors have found nothing to support American and Israeli claims. Iran has done nothing illegal; it has demonstrated no territorial ambitions nor has it engaged in the occupation of a foreign country -- unlike the United States, Britain and Israel. It has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to allow inspectors to "go anywhere and see anything" -- unlike the US and Israel. The latter has refused to recognize the NPT, and has between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons targeted at Iran and other Middle Eastern states.

Those who flout the rules of the NPT are America's and Britain's anointed friends. Both India and Pakistan have developed their nuclear weapons secretly and in defiance of the treaty. The Pakistani military dictatorship has openly exported its nuclear technology. In Iran's case, the excuse that the Bush regime has seized upon is the suspension of purely voluntary "confidence-building" measures that Iran agreed with Britain, France and Germany in order to placate the US and show that it was "above suspicion." Seals were placed on nuclear equipment following a concession given, some say foolishly, by Iranian negotiators and which had nothing to do with Iran's obligations under the NPT.


For more than half a century, Britain and the US have menaced Iran. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratic government of Muhammed Mossadeq, an inspired nationalist who believed that Iranian oil belonged to Iran. They installed the venal shah and, through a monstrous creation called Savak, built one of the most vicious police states of the modern era. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was inevitable and very nasty, yet it was not monolithic and, through popular pressure and movement from within the elite, Iran has begun to open to the outside world -- in spite of having sustained an invasion by Saddam Hussein, who was encouraged and backed by the US and Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 09:55 AM

"TEHRAN, Feb. 13 — Iran announced Monday that it had postponed talks on letting Russia enrich its uranium, a proposal that Russia had offered as a way to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Iran also signaled that it was resuming the enrichment of uranium at one of its main nuclear sites, according to diplomats close to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

The enrichment move, while not unexpected, intensifies Iran's confrontation with the West over its nuclear ambitions, two weeks after the agency's 35-nation board voted to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council. Iran's hardening stance seemed to close off some options for diplomacy.

In Tehran, a government spokesman, Gholamhossein Elham, said during a weekly news conference that the Russian talks had been postponed because of the "new situation."

The talks were to resume Thursday on a proposal by Moscow to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia up to low level to allay international concerns that Iran might try to make a nuclear bomb. The plan was supported by the United States, Europe and China."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/international/middleeast/14iran.html?ex=1297573200&en=4a88a1f0f2c0624f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 08:46 AM

Don,

"Why not approach their leaders and suggest the following: "Dismantle your expensive enrichment program and build your power stations and the US, the UK, and Russia will supply you free of charge all the fuel you need to operate them".

If they did not accept this, then suspicions about their real intentions would be more credible. If they did, problem solved, and the cost would be a lot less than the cost of military action."


THAT WAS WHAT THE RUSSIANS OFFFERED. The iranians refused the deal, insisting on their OWN enrichment.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:59 AM

Why do national leaders always approach this kind of problem from the confrontational POV?

Would it not be far simpler, and far safer to take the obvious path to a peaceful solution?

The Iranians have stated that all they want is to use nuclear power to produce energy.

Why not approach their leaders and suggest the following: "Dismantle your expensive enrichment program and build your power stations and the US, the UK, and Russia will supply you free of charge all the fuel you need to operate them".

If they did not accept this, then suspicions about their real intentions would be more credible. If they did, problem solved, and the cost would be a lot less than the cost of military action.

They could then be given uranium, enriched to power grade, so that they would have enough spare not to be vulnerable to supplies being suddenly cut off.

Can anyone suggest a reason why this would not be a good solution, and improve relations between Iran and the West.

The same idea might work well for improving the economies of other third world nations too, and reduce the threat of a nuclear holocaust.

As a shared venture between the major nuclear powers, the cost would in any case be minimal, and could be considered as a valid aid program.......IMO of course.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 02:38 AM

Who's running this political circus, US, THEM or the other guys? You threaten to shoot me, if I take you seriously I'm getting a gun, even if I hate them & when you hold yours to my head I'm holding mine to yours, tough one, huh. So far the only threats I've heard is from us (remember the Axis of Evil speach), so far the only guns first on the scene I've seen have been ours, so who's holding the gun to whose head? Are they as crazy as some would like us to believe, are they sure? Are we as crazy as they think we are? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't. Is Bush just as crazy or stupid as any of them? Why wouldn't they think that? He certainly, in their eyes could be, he's the most powerful leader in the world & therefore the most dangerous given his recent track record, in there eyes & in the eyes of many others. We talk about assassinating their leaders, doesn't that threat cause them to worry & think about the same actions towards us & lets not be naive here about who does & doesn't or who hasn't used these measures in the past?

Little Hawk makes a good point about proving a non existent. We've been down this road before & we've been taken for a ride by our own government even though there was poof to the contrary which wasn't listened to & was buried & ignored. And still this has somehow been bushed aside & is again rearing it's unnoticed ugly head.

If we really want to rid ourselves of nuclear threats why would we continue to advance our own programs? Why would we turn a blind eye to Israel & not to Iran, nothing like OK'ing an off balanced defense system for one & not the others, or are Israelis a better race & a saner people than Iranians? Why do we get to call the shots? Why does N. Korea need to dismantle their program & not us along with them? Or why don't we own them all & England & all the other blind allies hand them over to us for safe keeping? Anyone feel that trusting, I don't think so, WHY?

In the not so far future we will be come a Hermit Nation. Sitting on the front porch, finding food where we can hunt it down. Don't come shopping at my general store, not when your carrying that shotgun, we're closed & we don't deliver. Don't expect the mail & you know the rules about carrying firearms in a post office. If all you got is a gun for insurance & no card or coverage don't come knocking at this emergency room door, hope you got a few band-aids at home.

When you want to lead the world you're better off staying at home by yourself. It's better for all of us!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 02:16 AM

Only thing you have missed out on Dianavan is, that under the terms of the nuclear NPT, the entire process has to be completely transparent, carried out under the auspices of the IAEA. Iran has failed to do that, for 18 years they ran a secret development programme in widely seperate facilities that the IAEA/UN never knew about until the locations of these facilities were disclosed by Iranian dissidents.

A few more things that you have missed out on in summation:

- A known track record for anti-Israeli terrorist sponsorship;
- The acquisition of solid fueled intermediate ranged missiles (range 1200 - 3500 km);
- A clerical heirarchy that continually calls for the destruction of Israel every Friday;
- A newly elected ex-Republican Guard as President who has, as Head of State, stated that he wants Israel, "Wiped from the map".

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:29 PM

Thanks for the link, petr.

I think this just about sums it up -

"The current US campaign to impose United Nations sanctions on Iran
is doomed to fail, because it is not breaking the law. As a signatory of the NPT, it is fully entitled to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, including the technology for enriching uranium, even though that also takes it much of the way to a nuclear-weapons capability."

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 08:46 PM

Hi, Teribus.

When N Korea was rattling its twelve nuclear sabres, I suggested in an e-mail to the CIA that they lend S Korea twelve nuclear sabres to rattle back. Then make clear that there would be a tit for tat exchange. Never heard a thing back.

Your idea would certainly ensure that Iran think long and hard before doing anything rash. I agree with you, despite my having a deep hatred for nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 08:45 PM

Yes, that would be a very effective deterrent. I figure there is already most likely quite a bit of unofficial communication going back and forth. I hope so, anyway. It would help to prevent serious mistakes made simply through lack of communication.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 08:42 PM

I would tend to agree with the perspective advocated by Peace on this. An alternative would be for the US, 'unofficialy', to let Tehran know that should they pursue a policy that would lead to them acquiring nuclear weapons that the US would allocate on a full-time basis three SSBN's tasked specifically with the defence of Israel, thereby providing Israel with an invulnerable second strike capability.

With three operational SSBN's it would not matter how many nuclear weapons Iran had, because any use of such a weapon against Israel, directly, or a-symetrically by Iranian useage of any one of the numerous terrorist groups it supports, would result in the total destruction of Iran. Actually I do not believe that they would have to go that far, the cities of Tehran, Bandar Abbas and Quom would be sufficient.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 08:10 PM

petr,

That scares me, too. I just don't see how adding members to the 'nuclear club' will benefit the planet. I grew up with 50,000 nuclear weapons in this world during the days when it scared the crap out of thinking people. Now, nuclear arsenals have diminished by 50%. There are only about 25,000 to worry about.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 08:07 PM

I enjoy Dyers writings, and enjoyed his recent history of war as well.
and I do think hes over the top sometimes.

in this case if you believe that Irans nuclear ambition is dangerous to the rest of the world then I guess you have to believe in some way of stopping it.

(also note that the CIA believes its 10years away)

the options are then - referral to the Security Council,
and possible sanctions - unlikely

some kind of surprise military strike by the Israelis or the US
and I agree with that link above by the Oxford Research group.
it would only make things worse in the long run, and not likely to succeed - as the Iranians have probably spread out the facilities and
and put them in hardened bunkers --
there would be a further threat to tanker traffic in the gulf, oil prices would go even higher, this would play into the hands of AlQaeda and end up with more recruits for their side.

another option would be to work out an agreement whereby the Russians might supply the enriched uranium.

or probably the best long term option would be to support dissidents in Iran and work towards a popular overthrow..

America isnt bothered by the Chinese nuclear capability , they do a huge amount of trade with China, Im not bothered at all by Irans desire for nuclear weapons, on the other hand I am more concerned that the US in its attempt to maintain its Pax Americana, will destroy
the UN and go back to the 19th century system of the law of the jungle and shifting alliances..

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:48 PM

And you may be quite correct, Peace. I can't say I know for sure. That's why I have posted quite a variety of articles here, some of which I agree with, some of which I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:46 PM

BTW,

During my pursuit of a degree I took a course entitled "The History of Human Conflict." Dyers "War" was one of the required texts for the course that was taught by a retired Royal Marine whose doctorate was in military history. I enjoy Dyer and do realize waht a brilliant man he is--just as I recognize that LH is a brilliant guy in his own right. In this case, I think yer both wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:39 PM

Israel has had no necessity to use them. That's the understanding, isn't it?

They are the weapon of last resort, and everybody knows that.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:33 PM

Good article. I think Gwynne Dyer has it right.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:32 PM

Gwynne Dyer also occasionally likes to hear himself talk. I do not at all agree with him that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a non-issue. And writing off the remarks from Iran's leader doesn't change the remarks the leader came out with. No thank, Gwynne, but if I have to trust someoone in the Middle East with nukes, I will trust Israel which has had them for decades and has never used them.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:21 PM

if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons there existence would be for deterrence value, to prevent the US from overthrowing the regime than for wiping Israel off the map, which would be suicidal.

the other point I wanted to make above is that India and Pakistan very nearly had a nuclear exchange a couple of years ago after a couple terror attacks in India (in the legislature and an army base where 22 soldiers wives and children were murdered). All of this was intended to goad India to attack, so when it mobilized the Pakistanis threatened to use nuclear weapons. Both sides backed down - and in this case the presence of nuclear weapons (in hindsight) probably prevented a war.

I tend to agree with Gwynne Dyer on this one
nuclear Iran?
Petr

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:21 PM

Iran is run by a fucking lunatic. That is why they should not have nukes. IMO. Last remark on it from me.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:18 PM

Exactly. No country wishes to reveal all its military playing cards for all to see.

Therefore, why expect Iran to?

Anyway, here's another viewpoint on the situation...quite different from mine:

War With Iran on the Worst Terms

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:11 PM

If you were Israel, would you? The Arab world has on many occasions said they want to see the destruction of Israel--push them into the sea, etc. No thanks, pal. I wouldn't tell ya either.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:07 PM

I don't necessarily think that it would make things better for Iran, Peace. But...from their point of view, if they had a few nukes, and the ability to deliver them to targets such as Tel Aviv or the American 6th fleet off their shores...then it would be far less likely that the USA or Israel would dare to launch a first strike on Iran. It would prove too costly.

I presume that is how the Iranians would see it. And not too surprising if they did see it that way.

Right now, there is little (in a military sense) stopping the USA and Israel from attacking Iran...once the decision is made. I think it would be a stupid decision, mind you, but that's just my opinion. Bush and the Israelis may not see it that way.

Once India got the bomb, Pakistan felt obliged to have it too. That's the way it goes with regional rivalry. The Muslim nations all know Israel has it, and they all feel like they must play second fiddle as long as that is the case.

Israel never signed the NPT. Israel basically does whatever they want to, regardless of what anyone thinks, and no one can do anything about it. The Muslims are keenly aware of that. Naturally, they desire parity with Israel.

I would just love it if everyone stopped building nukes, but I can't make that happen. Why does the World not demand that Israel reveal its nuclear weaponry and submit to international inspection and regulation? Because the USA more or less runs the World, that's why. Israel is treated as a nation of equal human beings by the USA. Muslim countries are treated like nations of not very desirable vermin in comparison. It's a double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 06:49 PM

"I think the presumption of their insanity is simple the convenient propaganda excuse to do exactly what the USA and Israel have been wanting to do, regardless...which is destroy Iran as a regional power in the Middle East. If Iran can be provoked into making violent statements, so much the better for the USA and Israel"

I do not agree, but I will say this: Even if that is true, how does Iran having nukes make things better for Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 06:08 PM

I know why we can't agree...

You guys actually believe this is all about stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...

Well, I'd be in favour of stopping them from doing that too. But I don't think that's what it's really about. I think that's a red herring...a media-created drama to set the stage for a war.

The Iraq war was NOT about Saddam's WMD. A war with Iran will NOT be about Iranian WMD, in my opinion. It will be the usual jockeying for power in the strategic oil region...and the usual regional power politics by Israel...whose attitude toward Iran is basically very much like Iran's attitude toward Israel, only the Israelis have the firepower to effectively back up such an attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 06:00 PM

Okay, gentlemen, that is the essential difference in our positions, and that's why we disagree.

You see the Iranians as insane enough to commit national suicide just to get Israel, and I don't.

I think the presumption of their insanity is simple the convenient propaganda excuse to do exactly what the USA and Israel have been wanting to do, regardless...which is destroy Iran as a regional power in the Middle East. If Iran can be provoked into making violent statements, so much the better for the USA and Israel.

It's a political game. The same game we've seen before, and we'll see it again.

Step 1: Define a country in a strategic area as "evil" (in its intentions and nature).

Step 2: Focus on its leader. Decide that he is "as bad as Hitler". Scare everyone with this terrible boogyman leader who is a threat to the whole world! (not)

Step 3: Threaten to take action against that country if it doesn't knuckle under and surrender to all our demands. (which it obviously won't)

Step 4: Take it to the U.N. (to make it look good)

Step 5: Keep scary stories going in the media all about it. (to get people ready for war)

Step 6: The U.N. may not decide to go all the way with you on this. If that happens, just do it anyway, and pretend you have their approval even though you don't. (Coz who really gives a shit about the U.N.? They're a joke, right?)

Step 7: Send in the bombers and cruise missiles. (Yippee! Now I feel such a sense of relief. Nothing like blowing things up to relieve that sense of frustration and moral drift.)

And that's just the beginning of a bigger and even worse festering mess than the present mess we are dealing with in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Note: the above 7 steps need not necessarily be in that exact order...but just approximately.

This is all contingent on one important matter. The country attacked must be incapable of seriously threatening the USA or Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:33 PM

LH,

By LETTING Iran have a nuclear weapon, you are effectively starting a nuclear war- something the US and USSR were able to avoid. HOW does that make them any safer than to not have the nuclear weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:29 PM

With you on that, BB.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:27 PM

LH,

"I just do not consider them a serious strategic threat to either Israel or the USA, that's all. They lack that capability."

And why not? I have posted articles that show that they HAVE the delivery system, and 20kg of fissionable material is not that hard to get. Lots easier when you have tons of lower level enriched fuel to camaflage the weapons grade...





"Do you seriously think Iran would risk attacking Israel with WMD, knowing how Israel is armed to retaliate? I don't."

Well, most of the world seems to disagree with you. IMO, Iran would attack Israel even if it was certain that it would lose 60% of it's population- they be martyrs, like the children setting off mines in front of troops.

ANY nuclear attack on Israel would certainly kill most, if not all Palestinians from fallout- even if Israel does nothing. I do not like genocide.

A single weapon could take out 60% of the population, and 80% of the industry of Israel- If you were them, would you let someone who states that his goal is the destruction of Israel have that weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:23 PM

Canada sold Candu reactors to India. India enriched uranium and exploded a few bombs. Anyone remember that?

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:14 PM

No, I don't regard them as particularly peaceful in their inclinations, BB... ;-)

I just do not consider them a serious strategic threat to either Israel or the USA, that's all. They lack that capability. Thus I do not think Israel and the USA are justified in pre-emptively attacking them.

What are they (Iran) trying to hide? Everyone has something to hide. Don't you figure Israel and the USA have things to hide?

How would Israel or the USA react if the rest of the World started pressuring them to reveal the locations and nature of all their weaponry to foreign inspectors?

Not well. They'd say, "Over our dead bodies..."

Do you seriously think Iran would risk attacking Israel with WMD, knowing how Israel is armed to retaliate? I don't.

The only way they'll do it is if such a war is forced upon them. Then they would have nothing left to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:05 PM

LH,

"It is my impression that they have never asked for the right to build nuclear weapons, but merely to fuel their reactor." WITHOUT the inspections and monitoring that the other signatories to the NPT have... I wonder why?


If they are so peaceful, what are they trying to hide ( IN VIOLATION OF THE NPT?)

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:01 PM

Yes, BB, I understand that. It is my impression that they have never asked for the right to build nuclear weapons, but merely to fuel their reactor.

The accusations against them seem to give the impression that they are defying the World by saying, "We're going to build nukes if we want to."

I don't get the impression they are saying that. I get the impression they are saying, "We have a right to enrich uranium to fuel our reactor and make electricity."

Is that not what they are saying?

I don't know whether or not they are secretly trying to make a bomb. They may be. They may not be. Some kind of empirical proof would seem like a good idea before starting a war, wouldn't it?

Otherwise we may have yet another war launched over spurious reasons.

You clearly don't regard the Iranians as trustworthy. (grin) Well, neither do I. But...I don't regard any of the other major players as trustworthy either. They have all proven themselves to be opportunists and liars over and over again.

Thus I am a bit cynical about yet another "save the World" crusade by the people who are presently confronting Iran. I know why they're doing it...strictly for their own gain. They want control of the oil. They want unrivalled military supremacy in the region. They want to win the game. They are all in the grip of totally self-serving ambition, and none of them are "the good guys".

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:52 PM

LH,

"They are not even allowed to produce fuel for their own nuclear reactor within the terms of the NPT that they are signatory to. "

Wrong, as stated above. "within the terms of the NPT that they are signatory to."




"They are not allowed to have weapons which would give them the capability to fight back effectively if invaded." TRUE That is the purpose of the NPT, to allow for use of nuclear power WITHOUT allowing nuclear weapons. If they don't like it, they should not sign the NPT and NOT get the benefits of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:42 PM

LH,

"They ARE allowed by the NPT to enrich Uranium to the point where it can be used to fuel their nuclear reactor and make electricity."

This IS true, but you have ignored the rest of it - UNDER inspection by the UN to insure that it is ONLY to power production level, and not weapons grade. IRAN HAS VIOLATED THIS BY KICKING OUT THE INSPECTORS AND THE MONITORING INSTRUMENTS.

"So...a nation which is not violating its NPT obligations is being accused by the USA (and various others) as if it was violating its treaty obligations." IS A FALSE, MISLEADING STATEMENT.

Iran IS violating its NPT obligations.

Regardless of what you might want to believe. THAT is why the UN is acting.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:37 PM

You have stated the very points I had in mind, Petr.

I find it ironical that Iran is being accused in the media as if they were violating the NPT, when in fact they are not violating it!   They ARE allowed by the NPT to enrich Uranium to the point where it can be used to fuel their nuclear reactor and make electricity. (It requires far higher enrichment of Uranium to make a bomb.) I guess the people running the media figure the general public is just too uninformed and too distracted and just plain too ignorant to notice that little discrepancy! (and, yes, they are...)

So...a nation which is not violating its NPT obligations is being accused by the USA (and various others) as if it was violating its treaty obligations. Clever. Who would notice that the accusation is not true, when they assume it MUST be true?

Accordingly, Iran is getting mad and saying they will withdraw from the NPT. This is foolish on their part, because it plays directly into the hands of the USA, which can then say..."See? We told you they were outlaws!"

The only way Iran could temporarily defuse this crisis would be to shut down and dismantle all their nuclear facilities. This they obviously will not do. Would anyone else do it under the same circumstances? Hell, no.

The Iranians have said inflammatory things, yes. So have the Americans and Israelis. The Israelis have repeatedly spoken of launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran. Countries that openly speak of attacking their neighbours are usually not complimented for it by the world community, but it depends who they are and who is issuing the compliments, doesn't it?

Double standard.

The "good guys" (America, the UK, and Israel) are always allowed to attack whomever they want, whenever they want, however they want...because they are presumably..."good". The "bad guys" (Iran, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and whoever else comes later, and someone WILL)...ahhhh...that's a different story! They are NOT allowed to attack anyone or even threaten to at some point without being ass-whupped by the Superpower. They are not even allowed to produce fuel for their own nuclear reactor within the terms of the NPT that they are signatory to. They are not allowed to have weapons which would give them the capability to fight back effectively if invaded.

Nope. Bad guys have no rights. Bad guys are not really human. They have swarthy skin and facial hair. They were funny clothes.   They're all insane, and can't be trusted. They're not like you and me. They're just vermin, to be exterminated the moment they try to exercise what might be termed "assumptions of equality".

Thus were the colored races dealt with by the Whites in the great colonial age of European expansion across the globe. Little has really changed.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:50 PM

probably the best the US & EU can do right now is provide support to dissidents in Iran - because that is Irans weakness. There are an awful lot of young people there who would rather have a western lifestyle, and despise the revolutionary guard.

currently IRan is not in any violation of NPT, they are in fact allowed to enrich uranium. (ONe wonders why the US should insist on compliance of others with NPT when the US has recently opted out of the ABM treaty and has been developing small scale bunker busting nukes) -

Why is a nuclear armed IRan such a threat, is it because its an ISlamic nation? Pakistan has nuclear weapons (plenty of terrorists have come from Pakistan) and it doesnt seem to be an issue.

its a little known fact but a couple of years ago Pakistan and India almost had a nuclear exchange - after an attempted terror attack on Indias govt assembly.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:49 PM

Amos,

If YOU trot out France as objecting to our invasion of Iraq as evidence that the invasion was wrong, HOW can my pointing out that France, a great apologist for Iran, has determined that it it more dangerous to trust Iran than to take action?

On the other hand, if you are conceding that France was wrong about Iraq, your abject apology is accepted... (BG)

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:45 PM

BB:

Oh! You are now accepting decrees from France as reliable? I'm not disagreeing with you, mind; just curious about the shifting sands of alliance and the rhetoric that accompanies it.

You want Freedom Fries with that crow?


A