 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 08:25 AM Be it Seymour Hersh of the NYT or the Washington Post the reports of an immenent pre emptive nuclear strike on Iran are more than sabre rattling. This nuclear war has no precedent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 08:38 AM The official Pentagon statement is that President Bush is not looking at any military solutions in the near future and that the plans reported in the NYT are only contingency plans and are not yet operational. I feel that the diplomatic track record of this administration holds little promise for any non military solutions. Sources in the White House have said that President Bush has used the words "messianic" and "Hitler" in describing the president of Iran. I will have to illustrate the pot calling the kettle black. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 09:42 AM http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/potcalling.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 06 - 09:59 AM Precedent = Japan? Not a war, but a completion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:05 AM When I read this kind of idiocy I wonder if the U.S. will survive the remainder of this fool's second term. And I wonder at the idiots who elected this sociopath into office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:42 AM http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushblink.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM In Russia Bush is known by a russian term which was used often in the Communist Party. It roughly translates as "the convienient idiot". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:49 AM The more I look at this the more it looks like George's love child http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushblink.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM I just heard that some US generals are resigning over the current pre emptive nuke plan on Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:03 AM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Bjsessionid%3DC3HY5I431EHHRQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sShe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:13 AM Bush just called this breaking story "wild speculation" three times in a row at John Hopkins University. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:17 AM The thinking will likely go along the lines of, "Well, it's either the nuclear option or a protracted ground war." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: PeteBoom Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:17 AM One of these days, the difference between pre-emptive and preventice will be discussed. However, they will not be understood by a fair number of folks... Pre-emptive is striking before an opponent, when a strike from that opponent is imminent - E.g., the Israeli air-force smashing the Egyptian air-force... on the ground... a day or two before the Egyptians were scheduled to do the same thing. Preventive would be keeping the Egyptians from building the aircraft in the first place. Attacking Iran to prevent them from building nuclear weapons would be a preventive strike. I'm certain it would be legal, because George, by the Grace of God, King of America, the Fifth of that name, would say it was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Bill D Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:20 AM "wild speculation" is when you don't have the actual transcripts of him discussing it. I note his quotation did NOT say "totally untrue" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Janie Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM The report that I heard on "All Things Considered" yesterday was a bit more nuanced than the "Telegraph" link provided by Donuel. (For what its worth.) I don't know who I was listening to on NPR yesterday evening--some one was being interviewed about this story. Perhaps some one else heard it can can supply names? According to the interviewee, the Bush administration is not planning to nuke Iran, but refuses to take that option off of the table as one possibility, and that is what Pentagon officials find so disturbing. (Yea for the Pentagon.)Apparently many in the Pentagon do not think it should even been considered an option, no matter how remote. Some Pentagon officials are considering resignation if it appears the option will begin to be viewed as feasible. The same interviewee opined that Bush is beginning a campaign to prepare the American people for an invasion of Iran--regardless of nuclear options. Write your congressmen and women. Tell 'em to put the brakes on this mad administration. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:19 PM well, if the "nucular" option loses in favor of a ground force invasion, i don't see how that could possibly be implemented, given the wide dispersion of current U.S forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, not to mention nearly forgotten and "discarded" places like Bosnia. ...and this discounts "incidental considerations," like low recruitment numbers, the high cost of current operations and the drain on the economy ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:38 PM Too many people here living in a dream world. Preventing a country from buildind planes, devices, etc.? Give me a break! I am not real happy with everything going on BUT I would vote the same way if given 11/04 again. The Telegraph and NPR sources need to be supplemented by other news sources unless one is trying to preserve and strengten one's bias. Remeber this? "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security." President Kennedy, 1962 Cuban Missle Crisis |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:56 PM Kennedy nearly made a really bad mistake with Cuba. 11/04? I heard the NPR story. "Strengthen one's bias"? You need to speak to the folks who rely on Fox and Rush to get their "news." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,zebco Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:13 PM The Cuban missile crisis was a totally unnecessary flirtation with killing 300 million Russians and Americans (and a lot of other people as well). It was largely driven by people like Curtis LeMay, who were hungry to bomb and invade Cuba upon any pretext whatsoever. The USA already had nuclear missiles close to the Russian borders, in Turkey and elsewhere....but they could not bear the thought of the Russians having a similar quick strike capability. Well, what do you call someone who is willing to kill half the people in the world to prevent an opponent from standing on an even playing field? You call someone like that a lunatic, that's what. If America had a friendly island near Russia, would anything in the world suffice to prevent America from putting nuclear weapons there? No. America, in 1962, was apparently willing to risk its own people and the people of the world in order to maintain a double standard over Russia. That is arrogance of a really awesome level, and it's amazing how they could justify it to themselves. Cuba was a Russian ally. Why the hell should a nuclear power NOT be allowed to base nuclear missiles on an ally's territory if the ally allows it? The USA does it wherever they can. Why not Russia? Oh, well...it's simple....the USA is "under God" and is "good". Russia is "evil". You can't allow evil people to exist on a level playing field...(extreme sarcasm) No, only "good" people can be allowed to practice nuclear blackmail and to get away with murder. Fucking incredible. In return for Russia withdrawing from its placing of missiles in Cuba, Kennedy quietly dismantled the American nuclear missiles in Turkey. That was the real deal....you give this, I give that in return. The American public was not told about that part, because the old phony double standard (we're good...they're evil...we won...they lost) had to be maintained as the official version in the American media, in order to preserve the great American illusion of predominance, victory, and unchallengeable strength. Bush pursues that same illusion today. Democrats or Republicans, they all pursue that same illusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Barry Finn Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:19 PM We've been on this road for some time now & the powers that be are determined to have their way with Iran & the rest of the Mid East. This seems to me as a testing of the waters, to find out where the public stands & where the military, Pentagon, Congress & others stand to see the how, when, where & the whys to pull it off. Where to get the money & soliders from is an after thought. It's all a matter of selling it. As for Bush, he's denied everything he's done so far, why wouldn't he continue & deny this. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,zebco Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:59 PM Ah, but to use tactical nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive attack! That is a whole new ballgame. That is a whole new level of illegality and irresponsibility being considered by this administration. And you're probably right that they are testing the waters to see how people will react to the idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:14 PM I think the idea is probably to encourage the Iranians to push ahead with trying to develop atomic weapons as a way of deterring invasion. The object being to use this as an excuse for an attack on Iran. Very similar to the game played over Iraq really over the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, as a way of tricking people into going along with the invasion. I think that if an attack on Iran is set in motion by the USA it will make what has happened in Iraq seems like a minor hiccup. And neither Tony Blair nor anyone else will be able to deliver the UK as a supporting partner this time, even if they wanted to. Not a chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Ebbie Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM A few minutes ago I viewed a video of Wolf Blitzer (CNN) interviewing Seymour Hersch. It was interesting, to say the least. Hersch's position is that when the war department, the Pentagon, put on the table for the Administration all the conceivable options that could negate Iran as a nuclear threat they included the tactical nuke option. Accoring to Hersch Iran's nuclear facility is 75 underground, under hard rock. Hersch said that during the Cold War, the USSR too had its nuclear facilities 75 feet underground under rock, and that the US considered that the only way to break through and take it out was by nuclear means. That has been translated to fit the current situation. Today, of course, we have capabilities that were not available 40 years ago: limited, tactical weapons that seem to some as of limited danger to the rest of the world. For that reason, my guess would be that we are far more likely to utilize the measure. According to Hersch, Bush thinks that it is up to him and him alone, of all the Presidents to come, to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities. The Pentagon, according to Hersch, after having listed the nuclear option, then asked the White House to remove that option so that the war department could know that it is NOT being considered. The White House allegedly refused. World opinion, miscalculations, lack of foresight, the morality os such a action- all those and much more would seem not to be seriously considered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: katlaughing Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:39 PM Bush said, "And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation. Which is, kind of a -- you know, happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital." Yeah, he does speculate wildly! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:45 PM The official Pentagon statement is that President Bush is not looking at any military solutions in the near future and that the plans reported in the NYT are only contingency plans and are not yet operational Thats pretty much they said about Iraq in the preceding year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 10 Apr 06 - 03:02 PM I take it that the reference to 11/04 was the last Presidential Election in the USA. GUEST,zebco, on your post of 10 Apr 06 - 01:13 PM With regard to NATO I think the only country that US Forces have ever located Strategic nuclear weapons was the UK. They did deploy tactical nuclear weapons in NATO forward areas during the early part of the Cold War, and that was done for a specific reason, to counter Soviet/Warsaw Pact Chemical and Biological Weapons. The Soviets were told that should their precursor for an attack in the West involve Chemical or Biological weapons NATO's immediate response would be to hit their assembly areas with tactical nuclear weapons. As such I believe that tactical nuclear weapons were deployed in Germany, possibly Italy and in Turkey. The types of missiles deployed by the Russians in Cuba were strategic missiles and the thinking behind their deployment was to reduce the response time of the USA to any attack in Europe. It all came to nought once second and third strike capabilities were developed. You ask a specific question: "If America had a friendly island near Russia, would anything in the world suffice to prevent America from putting nuclear weapons there?" You say "No" zebco, but what about Taiwan? What about Japan? What about South Korea? (I know the latter can easily be ruled out because of the 1953 Ceasefire Agreement to keep the Korean Penninsula nuclear free - The US and South Korea lived up to that committment but as we know the North Koreans who invaded the South in 1950 did not). The US never put nuclear weapons in any of those friendly islands close to both Soviet Russia and Communist China, which rather goes against your arguement. To America, in 1962, and to the rest of the free world it was amazingly easy to justify the stance taken. Don't know if you lived through it zebco, I did. Back to Pre-emptive nuclear strikes and threats thereof - None of the usual suspects has chirped up about this, and I thought that they would have: "The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and fitting response on our part. This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind. Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction. The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power. . . . All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit" All of the above from the mouth of President Jacques Chirac of France. Clearly stated in Paris, on the 19th January. He also went on to say: "....that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism. President Chirac says France's nuclear arsenal could deliver a targeted strike. The French president said his country had reduced the number of nuclear warheads on some missiles deployed on France's four nuclear submarines in order to target specific points rather than risk wide-scale destruction. At the same time, he condemned "the temptation by certain countries to obtain nuclear capabilities in contravention of treaties." (i.e. Iran) Not much "wild speculation" about the French intention is there Donuel, Chirac has all but declared that it's the first line of defence. - What no cartoon to hand? Now what did your guys say according to Janie,10 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM "I don't know who I was listening to on NPR yesterday evening- some one was being interviewed about this story. Perhaps some one else heard it can can supply names? According to the interviewee, the Bush administration is not planning to nuke Iran, but refuses to take that option off of the table as one possibility, and that is what Pentagon officials find so disturbing." Just as well they're not working for the French then isn't it. But, not one word, not a whisper, now that's an example of double standards for you zebco. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 10 Apr 06 - 04:02 PM "To America, in 1962, and to the rest of the free world it was amazingly easy to justify the stance taken. Don't know if you lived through it zebco, I did." Yerah. So did I. And today one of the nuclear powers I fear is the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 10 Apr 06 - 04:12 PM As of 1997 . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,zebco Date: 10 Apr 06 - 04:48 PM Yes, I lived through it. It was an unnecessary crisis. It risked millions of lives over what was not an attack (which would have been insane and suicidal anyway on the part of both Cuba and Russia), but simply a deployment of weapons onto the soil of a willing ally. The USA deploys weapons onto the soil of any willing ally it chooses, whether or not they are close to Russia. My point about Cuba was this: Cuba was agreeable to having the Soviets place nuclear weaponry on the island. They wanted it done. That was not the case at all with your example of Japan, for obvious reasons...they have already been the recipients of atomic bomb attacks. They were not willing to serve as a base for such weapons. I am not sure what the case was with Taiwan or if the question ever even came up in regards to Taiwan. Yes, it was very easy in 1962 to justify the stance taken by the Kennedy administration. Uh-huh. People had been terrorized and propagandized ever since the late 40's into the idea of a never-ending war between the "Free World" (some of it not free at all) and the Soviets (none of them free at all). The blame for that can be placed equally on both Stalin and the West, as far as I'm concerned. It was, again, an insane situation that menaced hundreds of millions of lives to no useful purpose whatsoever. Further such insane situations, I believe, are just around the corner in the early 21st century, but the playing cards have been shuffled into a slightly different deck. Same insane rationale, different "bad guys" to obsess about. It's a mistake in thinking. It leads nowhere but to disaster. It is completely unproductive, and it is wasting our collective time and our resources while risking the lives of all of us needlessly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: katlaughing Date: 10 Apr 06 - 05:19 PM Janie, maybe it was this: Reports this weekend indicate that the Bush administration is stepping up plans for a military strike against Iran. Host Debbie Elliott speaks with Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, about the rhetoric surrounding Iran, and what it all means. Audio available on this page. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 06 - 05:46 PM Yesd, I lived through it. Didn't really expect to. Since I'd spent most of my adult life with Russian Nuclear weapons only a few minutes away, and I knew that the Russians were in the same situation vis-a-vis American nuclear weapons, I could never understand why the Americans got their knickers in such a twist when it appeared that they were now faced with the same thing. If they really believed all that MAD deterrent stuff, they should have been pleased to have the rockets on Cuba, as a reassurance which should reduce the danger of somebody thinking that a first strike by America might be worth trying. And that in turn would reduce the danger if a first strike by the USSR. And on the same basis, they should see the idea of Iran having an effective deterrent as a potentially stabilising development. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Don Firth Date: 10 Apr 06 - 08:25 PM Possible Iranian rational: 1. Bush identifies Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as "The Axis of Evil."Sounds pretty straightforward to me. In the meantime, on this side of the pond, the inmates are in charge of the asylum. When does the next star ship leave for Alpha Centauri? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:53 PM For a free ride Mr. Firth, please remember the password: Nacho delerium Nicto in liquori uteri. Roughly translated from Centurian is: cigarettes and whisky and wild wild women. ......... To get back to earth, this is not the first trial balloon that the neocons have floated regarding their plans for a nuclear war. This is literally the 3rd one in 5 years. It is going to go forward. They are dug in and prepared to wait 2 years for the dust to settle. Speaking of the dust settling, the DU that we spread in the Balkans and Iraq in desert storm and again now has coincided with lung cancer in new epidemic proportions. Although the possibility of radioactive petroleum has already been looked into by the Bush administration and the pentagon, I am fully confident that they have not fully thought through their own best case scenario^. It is up to each of us to think out our own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 06 - 01:46 AM Interesting link Peace, if it still holds true (I realise it was as of 1997) it means that it is getting on for 20 years since the US produced a nuclear weapon. In fact not since the SALT, START agreements reached with the USSR. Timing is a bit off MGOH the Cuban Missile crisis happened before the theory of MAD came into being. Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent was only credible once a second strike capability existed for both sides. That point was truly reached when both sides possessed SSBN's (nuclear submarines capable of firing ballistic nuclear missiles). MGOH reckons that the USA should see the idea of Iran having an effective deterrent as a potentially stabilising development. Now let's see in the 1920's someone wrote a book about what they intended to do given the opportunity, a few years later he got the opportunity developed the means and enacted what he had written with a few modifications and which resulted in turmoil and immense human suffering. In Iran today we have a person in position to act, who has stated clearly what the goal of every Islamist should be, who leads a country that has developed a capable delivery system for ballistic weapons and who now is trying to convince the world that it only wants to develope the capability to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Sorry MGOH, a nuclear armed Iran a stabilising influence - not as long as your arse points downwards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Apr 06 - 08:08 AM "I note his quotation did NOT say "totally untrue" " I'm waiting for Johnny Howard to say it's 'totally untrue', then I will put my head between my legs and kiss my.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST Date: 11 Apr 06 - 08:38 AM The world has good reason to be afraid of the U.S. ... witness Iraq and the subsequent invasion for oil. Anyone that has anything the U.S. wants should be afraid. (Canada you have lots of fresh water ... hmmm) There might also be a political reason for invading Iran: elections in 2008. The rationale being, you don't want to change horses in the middle of the stream. If this scenario is feasible, then there may be some sort of strike against Iran around 2007 - giving Bush some time between now and then to conjure a justification out of thorough and reliable "intelligence reports" (hey if it worked once it can work again) ... So if Bush embroils us in some sort of "intervention" in Iran, around election time the theme can be played that another Republican administration is essential to see this thing through to the end. Just a thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 11 Apr 06 - 10:32 AM "it means that it is getting on for 20 years since the US produced a nuclear weapon" True enough as far as it goes; however, they had about 20,000 of the bloody things, so it's not like they needed to produce any others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 11 Apr 06 - 10:38 AM BTW, 1997 was not a magic year: "50. Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs: $35,100,000,000" Y'all might want some fodder for yer nightmares . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 06 - 11:29 AM Hi Peace, a couple of useful sites, thanks. From that last one since 1945 the US has built 70,000 nuclear weapons covering a range of 65 types. As of 2002 US had stockpiled 10,600 nuclear weapons of various types of which 2,700 were not deployed. The US wishes ultimately to maintain 4,900 weapons for contingency purposes. Seems as though there is evidence of a bit of a trend there. Oddly enough, the one fact that I though would have appeared was number used outside of tests - Since 1945 - None. If the US engaging in a nuclear pre-emptive strike is all you have to worry about, then your world must be in pretty good shape. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Apr 06 - 12:23 PM The Iranian President is probably about as sane and rational as the US President. That is, I admit, a worrying thought. However I'm not aware that he has made any threats about using nuclear weapons against nuclear armed Israel. What he has said is that he would like to see the country wiped off the map - not wiped off the planet, wiped off the map. The same way Palestine was wiped off the map, and more recently the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, British Honduras, the Gold Coast... Maps change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:10 PM "If the US engaging in a nuclear pre-emptive strike is all you have to worry about, then your world must be in pretty good shape." It's your world too, and it's not the nukes that fall on Iran that will ruin one's day; it's the nukes that get fired in response that will ruin one's day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:31 PM Few points Kevin, 1. Iran cannot threaten the use of nuclear weapons against another nation due primaliy to the fact it hasn't got any YET. It certainly does have the means of delivering them. 2. Palestine is the geographical name of an area in the middle-east it is not a country, it never was. The Palestinians are as much a nation as "Londoners" are. 3. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did say: On his Election - "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 (the current Iranian year) will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." In his October 2005 speech opposing Zionism - He agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime must be wiped off the map" and referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain in the Islamic world". These comments were condemned by major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed displeasure over Ahmadinejad's remark. I do not believe such condemnation would result if all these leaders and their advisors believed that the Iranian President was just talking about changing the names of places. 4. Iranian support for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah over the last 16 years is as well known as it has been documented. Their primary aim at the time being to derail any peace process. 5. Iran's Nuclear Programme: "With each week that passes, Iran's ayatollahs move closer to their goal of building an atom bomb. This is not misinformed propaganda pumped out by trigger-happy yahoos on the wilder fringes of America's Republican Party. This is the opinion of the dedicated teams of nuclear experts attached to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, whose task it is to sift through the highly complex science surrounding Iran's nuclear programme and to provide a considered judgment to the UN Security Council on the Iranians' ultimate objectives. During three years of painstaking negotiations with Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel peace laureate who heads the IAEA, went out of his way to play along with the charade that Iran's nuclear ambitions were entirely peaceful and designed to develop an indigenous nuclear power industry. This, after all, is a country with known oil reserves in excess of 90 billion barrels, more than enough to meet its energy needs well into the next century. Mr ElBaradei was even prepared to accept at face value the Iranians' shame-faced admission that their failure to disclose the existence of their massive nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz was no more than a bureaucratic oversight. When the inspectors were finally granted admission, they were dumb-founded to find themselves in a 250,000-acre complex containing two vast underground bomb-proof bunkers designed for enriching uranium to weapons grade. Mr ElBaradei is now prepared to concede that the Iranians have run out of excuses, and Teheran has been given until April 29 to implement a total freeze on its nuclear enrichment activities at Natanz and its other key plants, or face the wrath of the Security Council. At the same time the IAEA's nuclear specialists are working on a report that will be submitted to the UN on the same day, in which they will state explicitly their concerns about Iran's nuclear programme." (The West can't let Iran have the bomb - By Con Coughlin) Now Kevin, exactly how do you build and equip a facility the size of Natanz and omit to mention it? The Nuclear NPT required it and Iran is a signatory of that Treaty. Completely peaceful and honourable intentions Kevin - every indication given so far screams out against that being the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:39 PM "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran. (August 2001) But I'm sure that was no threat, just a statement of facts about the relative damage a nuclear war would do to both nations. McGrath, why do you you make such a malevolent interpretation of Ahmadinejad's nice words. He has only said Israel should be wiped off the map not wiped off the planet as you clearly realise. And then you go on to make such an extreme interpretation as shown in your historic comparisons. Ahmadinejad most likely only wanted to say that maps should no longer show Israel, like in postwar Germany (on both sides) the maps did not always display what actually was there and stayed there. Wolfgang Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:43 PM Today: The former Iranian President just announced that Iran now has enriched Urainum fuel. Also the price of oil went way up. So much for your sabre rattling George. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 11 Apr 06 - 05:39 PM >>Now let's see in the 1920's someone wrote a book about what they intended to do given the opportunity, a few years later he got the opportunity developed the means and enacted what he had written with a few modifications and which resulted in turmoil and immense human suffering.<< Who is that? Hitler? Why don't you mention him by name?? Let's see why... >>In Iran today we have a person in position to act, who has stated clearly what the goal of every Islamist should be, who leads a country that has developed a capable delivery system for ballistic weapons and who now is trying to convince the world that it only wants to develope the capability to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.<< So let me get this straight: Hitler caused mass suffering and this Iranian guy wants nuclear capability. So, you say, we know that Mr. Iran is going to cause mass suffering because Hitler did? Care to explain that? Moreover, Hitler did it without a bomb. And moremoreover, the Iranian hasn't actually done anything! So you're comparing a guy who caused mass suffering without a bomb to a guy who wants nuclear capability who hasn't done shit. but one is as bad as the other? Am I the only one looking around trying to find someone who understands what the hell you're taling about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Apr 06 - 05:52 PM The pot always looks blackest from the kettle's side...and vice versa. Both Iran and Israel have threatened each other. It looks to me like Israel is the one far more likely to carry out its threats. That's simply because they are better able to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Apr 06 - 06:15 PM And also has a documented past of doing such things - they bombed the Iraq nuclear facilities - clearly an act of war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 11 Apr 06 - 06:18 PM Yes, they did. And they had the good sense to do so before there was any nuclear fuel in it. That is planning. Good planning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Apr 06 - 06:21 PM And judging from today's announcement, that time may be past soon... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Apr 06 - 07:12 PM I understand Ahmadinejad's remark as a very stupidly expressed affirmation of support for a Right of Return for Palestinians. If implemented this would be likely to lead to a situation where Israel's poplulation was more or less eqully made up of Jews and Arabs. That's how it should have been all along, if the 1948 war had not resulted in ethnic cleansing. I think that is probably not going to come about. But it is an outcome which has always been favoured by some Israelis, both Jews and Arabs. |
