|
09 Feb 06 - 08:21 PM (#1665636) Subject: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Looks like it's in the works to me, but we'll have to wait and see. Here's a link to one interesting bunch of comments: How The War With Iran Could Play Out |
|
09 Feb 06 - 08:49 PM (#1665658) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Ebbie Yoicks |
|
09 Feb 06 - 10:22 PM (#1665704) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: jaze If it happens, I fear it will be the beginning of some really bad times for us all. |
|
09 Feb 06 - 10:43 PM (#1665721) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Once Famous Want it to not happen? Overthrow their government now. Take out their madman President. Otherwise, it's us or them. |
|
09 Feb 06 - 11:22 PM (#1665750) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Anonny Mouse Wow, Little Hawk-the link to that blog is downright scary-well, not the link-what's written. "If you're under the age of 42..." be prepared to be drafted?!?!? Fortunately that rules me out, but not my sons. If anything that article may have been too optimistic, as dire as it was. Really seems to me to be the powder keg to start WWIII...a lot more international involvement than first blush. Tactical nukes? Missile attacks on Israel? Geez all that's enuf to keep me up nights as if I could do anything about it. Martin may have a point... |
|
09 Feb 06 - 11:37 PM (#1665758) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 It aint gonna happen until there are direct Islamic fundamentalist attacts in Europe .... then that will get the Europeans all pissed off then they can join into the meleee. Let's face it, the U.S. hasn't the manpower or the economics to go this alone, and they aren't stupid to this fact ... they need all the help (militarily) they can get. And all it took was a cartoon ... a smooth move in tactics one must say. sIx |
|
09 Feb 06 - 11:47 PM (#1665760) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Amos They may not be stupid, but the C-in-C is, and history is replete with examples of reckless decisions at the top causing huge cockups. Bonaparte's Russian campaign, Hitler's Second Front, MCLellan's lassitude, etc., etc... all it takes is on dumpkopf in a position of leverage. The fact that such an action might precipitate the 3rd World War seems to be a bit beyond his imperious sensibilities. A |
|
09 Feb 06 - 11:54 PM (#1665763) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST "It aint gonna happen until there are direct Islamic fundamentalist attacts in Europe ...." What is a direct attack? Perhaps I should ask what is an indirect attack? It seems quite possible that this could easily be set up so that the U.S. could be assured of European allies. Regardless of whether Europe is attacked or not, the U.S. neo-cons have brought us to the brink of extinction. |
|
09 Feb 06 - 11:55 PM (#1665764) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Anonny Mouse 6-Yer probably right on with that-and I think it would have to be on the scale of 9/11-like taking out the Eiffel Tower, or some other comparable landmark type of thing, with a (sadly) massive body count. Meanwhile it just seems so many whackjobs are running the most militant, fundamentalist middle east nations. So comforting to know the economic well-being of pretty much the entire rest of the world is dependent on their oil. Sheesh! :( |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:39 AM (#1665784) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Shanghaiceltic So if it does happen, then we wont be getting oil from the ME, oil prices will of course rise and there will be increased tension between the west and China as everyone scrabbles for the non ME oil. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:15 AM (#1665801) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: LadyJean I knew Iranians in college. They were good people, good Muslims, but not terribly serious about it. They didn't drink, or date. But they went to dances, and parties. They hung out with the rest of us. When a professor asked Hossein (Usually called Hoss.) if he'd been to Mecca, Hoss responded " Hell no! You got to kiss a lot of stuff good bye when you do that!" The Iranians I knew knew how to enjoy themselves. They subsituted caffeine and sugar for alcohol, but they were serious partyers. I always wonder why Iranians put up with the mullahs. I keep hoping they will stand up and drive the fanatics out. They won't do it if we invade. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:31 AM (#1665806) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST They put up with the mullahs because they hated the Shah. They didn't like what American imperialism was doing to their culture and their economy. They chose the lesser of two evils. They still prefer the Mullahs to the western puppets. Thats democracy for you! |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:57 AM (#1665808) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: goodbar being 17 as of now i may have to start thinking about how i'll dodge the draft... "sarge i'm only 18 i got a ruptured spleen and i always carry a purse, i got eyes like a bat and my feet are flat and my asthma's getting worse, just think of my career and my sweetheart dear and my poor old invalid aunt, 'cause i ain't no fool i'm a-goin' to school and i'm a-workin' in a de-fense plant" |
|
10 Feb 06 - 07:15 AM (#1665890) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce from that blog: "All in all, I find it hard to comprehend that anyone could possibly see the above as some sort of "win" scenario. And yet, we are told this may be necessary to prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon maybe in ten years (and maybe more years before it could be delivered). " Of course, the fact that the Iranians have already obtained the delivery system, and are more like 2 to 3 years from functional, deliverable nuclear weapons ( at the outside) seems to have been missed. In addition, assume that Iran hits, say 5 Israeli cities. Then look at the fallout patterns, and ask yourself if there could even be a Palestinian state in that region afterwards- even on the West Bank. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 07:22 AM (#1665895) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:12 PM Makes Ballistic Missile Breakthrough A defence ministry statement said the new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missiles (pictured) - which the Islamic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres (1,280 miles). Tehran (AFP) May 31, 2005 Iran announced Tuesday it had successfully tested a new solid fuel motor for its arsenal of medium-range ballistic missiles, a technological breakthrough that sparked fresh alarm in Israel. "The test was a success," Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said on state television. "When you fill a missile with liquid fuel, you have to use it quickly. With solid fuel, a missile can be stored for years. And in addition, it makes the missile more accurate and cheaper too." A defence ministry statement said the new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missiles - which the Islamic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres (1,280 miles). http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iran-05p.html |
|
10 Feb 06 - 08:03 AM (#1665917) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Bobert I think the guy is missing one important pice and that is France... The US will jolly the French into an active role and well as perhaps a few lesser powerfull Eropean countries... You can allready see the PR stuff going on... The anti-Islamic cartoons were no accident... But, hark, sanity will overtake the insane and corrupt Bush junata before the Iranian invasion plans can be implimented... Remember in the selling of the IRAQ-mire invasion, they first tired to sell it in August and then admitted that August was a bad month fir "new products" (like when did killing folks become a product?)... Well, point is that until the Isrealis have use if air bases in the Kurdish controlled territory, the unveiling of the Iran invasion is accademic... But keep your eyes on Kurdish territory... Until then, think and push for sanity... Peace, Bobert |
|
10 Feb 06 - 08:19 AM (#1665933) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Janie What Amos said. Janie |
|
10 Feb 06 - 08:51 AM (#1665954) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Beer Before this war starts a truce will be called because the panepidemic will be upon us creating a greater catastrophe than a blood and guts shootout. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 09:07 AM (#1665969) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Teribus In reading the link supplied by LH, I was surprised at the awe in which the author held the Russian air-defence system that he claims the Iranians have. Is this the same type of "state-of-the-art" air defence system that the Coalition Forces swept aside in Iraq in 1991, obviously it will have been updated, but then again so has the US armoury and probably at a significantly higher degree. The author also seems to place undue importance on numbers, in modern warfare they do not tend to matter as much as they did previously, especially when you have no intention of 'occupying' territory. The proposed disposition of forces he recommends prior to the "US Attack" could not be carried out without notice. The Iranian submarines (all two of them) are conventional diesel-electric boats, their supposed adversaries were designed, trained and equipped, to fight the largest and most powerfull submarine fleet in the world (Soviet Northern Red Banner Fleet). Following the dispositions as recommended I would measure the live expectancy of those submarines in hours. The Missile Patrol Boats would not fare much better, as to fire their missiles they must first obtain target information in order to obtain a firing solution. That means turning something on, again their supposed adversaries were designed, trained and equipped, to counter the largest and most powerfull army in the world, the Red Army in Europe. The Missile Patrol Boat's electronic emmissions would be detected instantly, aircraft from the carrier's Combat Air Patrols would do the rest. The author's assumption that there are no internal points of friction within Iran is erroneous, there are in fact many, but the two most significant are the Iranian Kurds and the Iranian Arabs, both factions are not overly keen on their Persian lords and masters. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 10:09 AM (#1666008) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk The usual cheering sections on this forum, of course, are already lining up on their respective sides and hollering for their team.... (shrug) Here is another link for you to ponder and debate about. This one's quite dramatic: The First Day of the War with Iran |
|
10 Feb 06 - 10:36 AM (#1666038) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Strollin' Johnny No.6 - what were the Madrid and London bombings if they weren't direct attacks on Europe? |
|
10 Feb 06 - 10:42 AM (#1666043) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce More likely, Iran strikes back at Rome or Athens, the EU gets upset and drops a nuclear bomb in the oilfields and it burns for the next 150 years... |
|
10 Feb 06 - 10:59 AM (#1666063) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Only the USA, Iran or Israel are megalomaniac and irresponsible enough to pre-emptively drop a nuclear bomb on someone else, in my opinion... But that's just an opinion, of course. Same as your opinion. Of the three, Iran could least afford to do so, as it would immediately receive a massive response from the USA and Israel which would prove decisively fatal to Iran. You don't fire a puny few nuclear bombs (which is all they could possibly have in the next ten years) at people who already have several hundred or several thousand of their own nukes...unless you do it as a last bitter, despairing gesture, in response to them having already done it to you first. We can speculate all we want, but no one knows for sure unless and until it happens. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:06 AM (#1666071) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce "Of the three, Iran could least afford to do so, as it would immediately receive a massive response from the USA and Israel which would prove decisively fatal to Iran." Only if you are acting in a sane manner- which I do not see Iran or N. Korea doing. Both the civil and religious leaders have made statements that indicate a less than complete grasp of reality. MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction) depends on the sanity of both sides, or it does not work. IMHO, of course. And the question is, can we afford to let it happen, or should we take pre-emptive action to prevent it? And no, I do not know the correct answer until after the fact, either. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:08 AM (#1666073) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Alba Well before any of this carnage goes down I am going to the Cash and Carry, wholesalers later. Does anyone want me to pick them up a anything in the way of Bunker supplies. Jude |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:23 AM (#1666087) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Strollin' Johnny Or even Bunk-up supplies! :-) |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM (#1666088) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Alba :) SJ. Sounds like an even better plan..lol |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:32 AM (#1666098) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Strollin' Johnny Woooooo-hoo! |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:49 AM (#1666120) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk It has ever been the strategem of aggressors who seek justification for a "first strike" to assert that their opponents are insane, evil, and capable of anything. One's own insane actions are presumably thereby rendered moral and proper against one who has been labelled as an insane opponent. Ha ha. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and saying "it's okay for me to do what would be normally be considered an insane act were anyone ELSE to do it, because I'm good and the people I'm about to do it to are evil and insane." This is the classic defence of one's own insanity by implying that insanity is a condition found only in one's opponents. No, my friend, insanity applies to everyone when they act in an insane fashion, and pre-emptive wars are criminally insane actions...or merely criminally pragmatic actions. You do them because you're paraniod or you do them because you think you can win...or both. I doubt that the Iranians are any crazier than you, BB, because their opinion of the sanity of those they consider "enemies" appears to be identical to yours. Therefore, they are, by that hypocritical form of logic that justifies all pre-emptive strikes, entirely justified in killing you first. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Wouldn't it be ironical if two nations went to war merely because they BOTH regarded the other as being incapable of acting in a sane manner? This would be a case of 2 idiots, each incapable of honest self-awareness, each battling to the death against their own mirror image. I believe that describes Israel and their Muslim opponents quite well, as a matter of fact. It also described the USA and the Soviet Union quite well, back in the Cold War. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:55 AM (#1666124) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Anonny Mouse Another horror story-The First Day of the War with Iran-yet somehow plausible from LH. The probably dominoeing (is that a word?) from all of this economically is perhaps the least mentioned, but likely the most devastating (aside from tactical nukes here and there). Of course, this only addressed "the first day." I sincerely hope this all remains in the realm of speculation. Surely the highly-paid "think tanks" like Rand have done dozens of these. Now the question is: who's paying attention?? |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM (#1666134) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Teribus Every bit as fanciful as the first link but with far more holes in it Here are a few of them Mr Douglas Herman states that: "The war began as planned." - the first attack going in just after sunrise. Then a bit further down he informs us that around 09:15 with the first missile counter-attack by the Iranians - "Thousands of unsuspecting US soldiers died in the early morning barrage." Sounds a bit bloody ridiculous that having been blasting the hell out of nuclear facilities, naval ports, airfields and missile sites in Iran for what must have been the best part of four hours that there would be any "unsuspecting US soldiers" anywhere in the world let alone within the theatre of operations. Doesn't Mr. Herman believe that the Area Commander would have given his lads a 'heads up' on what was about to happen? I won't comment on what would be the most likely mission priorities, but we will stay with those selected by Mr Herman. On the subsequent sorties as described by Mr. Herman he obviously does not believe that air defence suppression missions would be flown. That's odd because against an opponent with any sort of air force or any sort of air defence capability that is exactly what you would do. It is precisely what has been done since 1967, but for some reason Mr. Herman has decreed otherwise. He is quite right about the outcome of any attempted air combat. For example a MIG-29 against say an F-16, the latter can acquire and engage at approximately 120km, the former has to wait until the range closes to 80km. I realise that at combat closing speeds of anything up Mach 4.6 that 40km difference disappears fairly quickly, it does give the F-16 the chance to get the first dig in, and gives the other guy something extra to think about. The Shah's air force was quite good, but the current mob when they initially got into power killed loads of them, their current record regarding aircraft would seem to indicate that they can barely maintain and operate simple transport aircraft, let alone keep high performance fighter aircraft up to snuff. My prediction would be that the Iranian Air Force would bug out in exactly the way that the Iraqi Air Force did - they would be no shows. If as Mr. Herman states the, "..the pre-dawn, pre-emptive attack wiped out fully half the Iranian defense forces in a matter of hours." Does he not grant the attacking force the intelligence to target the command and control centres of the Iranian armed forces? Again that is what has been done in the past without fail - why not now, in this particular instance? Herman - "By mid-morning, the second and third wave of US/Israeli raiders screamed over the secondary targets. The only problem now, the surprising effectiveness of the Iranian missile defenses. The element of surprise lost, US and Israeli warplanes began to fall from the skies in considerable numbers to anti-aircraft fire." Laughable, air defence suppression would by now have taught all but the most foolish battery commander to keep his missile control radars switched off or invite immediate destruction. As for Iranian anti-ship missiles destroying oil tankers? Another fanciful bit of rubbish, Iranian anti-ship missiles could not even sink the USS Stark. The Iranian fighter plane launching the missile managed to take off, search for and acquire it's target and fire it's misile how? While all the US and Israeli pilots were having a tea break? Ridiculous. Herman - "US Navy ships, ordered earlier into the relative safety of the Indian Ocean, south of their base in Bahrain, launched counter strikes." Now south of their base in Bahrain would put all those ships of the US Navy firmly in the middle of the Saudi Desert known as the forbidden quarter - Not a good place for ships, and a damn tricky place to get to particularly if you are in something large that needs vast quantities of water to float upon. But not in the least discouraged Mr. Herman continues - "At 9 AM, Eastern Standard Time, many hours into the war, CNN reported a squadron of suicide Iranian fighter jets attacking the US Navy fleet south of Bahrain (i.e. in the desert). Embedded reporters aboard the ships--sending live feeds directly to a rapt audience of Americans just awakening--reported all of the Iranian jets destroyed, but not before the enemy planes launched dozens of Exocet and Sunburn anti-ship missiles. A US aircraft carrier, cruiser and two destroyers suffered direct hits. The cruiser blew up and sank, killing 600 men. The aircraft carrier sank an hour later." Now let us be charitable to Doug Herman and allow that the US Navy's Fleet is in the Indian Ocean which is not south of Bahrain, it's sort of located east-south-east of it. How does this "squadron of suicide Iranian fighter jets" find the US Fleet? Do the Iranians send up a "squadron of suicide maritime patrol aircraft" to locate their target beforehand? Also it must be rather a large squadron for it to be capable of launching "dozens" of Exocet and Sunburn missiles. I know that the Exocet is rather a large missile, aircraft such as the Mirage (bomber version) and the Super Etandard carry one. Unfortunately for Mr.Herman the SS-N-22 Sunburn originally wheeled out in 1994 is a ship launched missile, it is big, it is fast, but like all anti-ship missiles in the former Soviet arsenal it needs to have target data. During the "Cold War" the Russians bankrupted themselves about five times just trying to get a missile system that could counter a strike carrier group, they couldn't come up with anything and eventually had to build carriers themselves. Nothing has changed AWACS, Tanker aircraft and far CAPS would render the SS-N-22 useless. As you read to the end of the article it sounds uncannily like complete and utter bullshit - fictional bullshit, but bullshit just the same. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:10 PM (#1666136) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST Would a link not have been more appropriate rather than a long copy and paste? |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:11 PM (#1666137) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Don't worry. I shall shortly post links to articles that will suit your partisan position better, teribus. ;-) (by the way, I also considered that last one somewhat fanciful in various respects...it aimed for dramatic effect) |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:18 PM (#1666147) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Maybe you'll like this one better: Another take on the War with Iran |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:19 PM (#1666151) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 "No.6 - what were the Madrid and London bombings if they weren't direct attacks on Europe?" Ok, Strollin' Jonny it will take another 'direct hit" to get the Europeans pissed off. BTW .. Guest or who ever you are .. asked what I meant by direct hit, it means a 'hit' in a European country as opposed to a foreign consolate or the slaughter of some European vacationers in Indonesia, Egypt or some place as such. ... ok. sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:20 PM (#1666152) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST,from Iran http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/assaulton.jpg |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:25 PM (#1666154) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Populations are stirred to support wars by encouraging certain basic emotions. Fear. Anger. Hatred. Blame. False righteousness. Watch how it's done... |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:28 PM (#1666156) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 "More likely, Iran strikes back at Rome or Athens, the EU gets upset and drops a nuclear bomb in the oilfields and it burns for the next 150 years..." ... you are correct Beardedbruce "Before this war starts a truce will be called because the panepidemic will be upon us creating a greater catastrophe than a blood and guts shootout." ... more than likely Beer. "Well before any of this carnage goes down I am going to the Cash and Carry, wholesalers later. Does anyone want me to pick them up a anything in the way of Bunker supplies. " ... smart thinkin' Jude "Only the USA, Iran or Israel are megalomaniac and irresponsible enough to pre-emptively drop a nuclear bomb on someone else, in my opinion..." ... damned foolish assumption L.H. "being 17 as of now i may have to start thinking about how i'll dodge the draft..." ... better start runnin' up here to Canada right now Goodbar! "I knew Iranians in college. They were good people, good Muslims, but not terribly serious about it." ... I knoew some Americans back in college, and still do now as a matter of fact, and they certainly are not all war mongers, or hell bent for wildfire wackos. sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:29 PM (#1666158) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Amos Teribus provides a sober balance of facts (which I accept at face value not having the time to look them up) to counter the arm-waving fiction offered in both these scenarios. But here is the larger problem. The contemplation of this war, developing scenes and counter-scenes, all the parts analysis, depends wholly on the postulate of agreement that this war IS taking place and will manifest physically. I reject such a proposition. Let us consider instead the notion that the outland ex-VP of Iran manages to oust the tendentious and bellicose President, by sparking an indigenous uprising. The government falls to the rebels, and they establish a government committed to prosperity trade and firm but moderate religously-derived ethics, including such precepts as peace, responsibility, tolerance and gradually move forward on major social issues including the balance of rights between men and women, for example, and the right to free speech in a non-violent social framework. Suppose instead of these war-mongering phantasms, we see the ancient wisdom of Persia come forward in new raiment, to generate a BETTER democracy than the sadly undermined one we use here in the US. How'j'a like THEM apples? A |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:30 PM (#1666160) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST,donuel The Islamic bomb, as they call nukes in Pakistan, would be the ultimate prize from an immediate military coup in Pakistan following a US invasion of Iran. Each side would claim the other used a nuke first. There would be much wailing and nashing of teeth. Christians would celebrate the event as the rapture. Muslims would devote themselves to the ultimate jihad, fatwa and universal chaos. Fox news would delare the US milk supply to be safe despite the worl wide radioactive fallout. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:31 PM (#1666161) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 I dunno Amos ... all my teeth hurt when I bit into one of them. Ouch !!! sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:33 PM (#1666164) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk One form of false righteousness is to claim that the enemy is insane, and therefore, one cannot reason with him and is "compelled" to attack him at the first opportunity for one's own security. People are usually zenophobic and insular and ignorant enough of others that they are easily convinced by such arguments about other people whom they will never know personally. All civilian populations wish to survive, raise their children in peace, and live a good life. This is universally true. This is what your leaders do NOT want you to think about when they are planning to launch a war on someone. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:36 PM (#1666168) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: CarolC What kind of odds are you willing to put on that scenario, Amos? |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:38 PM (#1666175) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk It was just an opinion, 6, based on past performance and present rhetoric of those three nations. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:44 PM (#1666180) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 Propably LH ... but there are so many possibilities and so many deranged humans involved ... who really knows who would make the first strike with a nuclear device ... as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter, cause it's all insane. sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:44 PM (#1666181) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk I mean, it IS the assumption of unquestionable moral and cultural superiority that drives people to commit the most heinous immoral atrocities, isn't it? Always has been. Tell me that the USA, Israel, and Iran are not each utterly assured of their moral and cultural superiority? They teach it to their children. It reeks in their every self-justifying statement. It is their implicit assumption, their psychological foundation, so taken for granted that it hardly needs to be said. Do they not all imagine themselves to be the noblest nation on Earth, the bearer of the torch of Truth? They do. Such people are extremely dangerous. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:49 PM (#1666186) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Amos Carol: Oh, about 40%. Depends on how many people snap out of this bloody vision and come to their sense. People get sucked into catastrophe entirely too willingly, but if they see what they are doing they will choose otherwise, in most cases. It's when they cannot see consequences (cf. Bush) that we get major fuckups. A |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:50 PM (#1666187) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Yes, admittedly there are others who might do it. India & Pakistan. Russia. China. It's possible. I'm afraid the disease of self-centredness is fairly common to nation-states... I think, though, that nations in a messianic mood are the most dangerous, and that includes the USA, Israel, and Iran (and Saudi Arabia too, if they had the military clout, but they don't). |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:50 PM (#1666188) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 I know some Americans, a couple of Iranians, a whole bunch of Israeli's, some Latvians, Lebanese .... And ya know something. There is no detection of cultural self superiority evident in that group of people. But then I have met some Canadians that flaunt cultural superiortty, I've met some Americans that have, Latvians that have ..... sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:55 PM (#1666193) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 Carol C. .... shouldn't you be busy packing instead of getting involved in all of this 'analysis to paralysis' ?? Reality is ... you're gonna be moving. Reality isn't ... your gonna change the world. sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:57 PM (#1666195) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: CarolC Parties who had existing agendas for going to go to war against Iraq (balance of power, oil, etc.), were saying that it would take a "Pearl Harbor type event" to convince the US to to wage such a war. Then, conveniently, 9/11 happened, and the US went to war against Iraq. Now, we have people saying it will take major terrorist attacks on Europe to get them to help out with a war against Iran. Based on that, I think we can safely assume that the people with long-standing agendas for going to war against Iran (balance of power, oil, etc.) will now arrange for such terrorist attacks to conveniently take place in Europe. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 12:57 PM (#1666196) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: CarolC I've been packing. I do need to take a break now and then, however. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:01 PM (#1666198) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Yes, individual people everywhere vary greatly, but what about the overall educational system in a country, and how it propagandizes the young to believe in war? I have been in both the American and Canadian school systems. I know from firsthand experience that the former emphasizes and glorifies extreme patriotic militarism, while the latter barely focuses on it at all. That's what I'm talking about. American political candidates feel compelled to flash their military credentials in order to get elected...they all pretend to be "John Wayne" totin' a gun and wearin' a badge and gittin' ready to fight the "bad guys". Canadian politicians simply don't do that at all. Never. Nada. It's a basic difference in psychology that goes very deep. Aggressive military messianic nationalistic systems use the public schools to indoctrinate the young to fight in future wars. Germany did it. Rome did it. Great Britain did it in the Empire days. I saw that done bigtime in the USA. I have never seen it done in Canada. You would not find it done in Sweden, Holland, present-day Spain, Italy, etc... You would definitely see it done in Israel and Iran. That's what I'm talking about. It's not a case in those counries of "if we have a war"...it's "when we have the NEXT war..." That's what I am referring to. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:20 PM (#1666207) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 "I've been packing. I do need to take a break now and then, however." I know exactly what you mean ... I'm the world's greatest procrastinator when it comes to packing and whatever. sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:25 PM (#1666212) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 Well ... with the Americans I personally know, the Americans I hear on various news channels, read about in periodicals there is evidince that an awful lot are not all piss and vinegar when it come to war monging and military mind propaganda ... I'd say the Yankee educational system is failing when it comes to your analogy. sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:25 PM (#1666213) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: CarolC Most of the packing is done. But I do need to get some laundry done. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:29 PM (#1666216) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 well there ya go Carol ... go and complete the laundry. Then you can come back to all this spinning debates, arguments and last but least exchange of knowledge and thoughts. sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:32 PM (#1666217) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: CarolC I'm making my lunch. The oil is getting hot in the pan for the eggs. I've still got a minute or two to shoot the breeze with you. And also while I'm eating. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:47 PM (#1666223) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 So Carol ... when are ya moving exactly? sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:50 PM (#1666227) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: CarolC Sunday. Tomorrow we load the U-haul. Ok. I'm off to do laundry. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:53 PM (#1666229) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 Good. Have a smooth, save move. sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 01:57 PM (#1666232) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: CarolC Thanks, number 6. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 02:08 PM (#1666240) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST,petr some points - I knew a few Iranians when I lived in Tokyo a number of years ago as well as some here in Canada. The one thing they all pretty much stated was that the young people of Iran represented a real threat to the ruling theocracy. Ie. They would go surreptitiously go on dates (pretending they were brother and sister) or have drinking parties in the country (hide the alcohol in orange juice etc) they were taking risks, but the point is that the population of Iran is quite different from the young revolutionaries when the Shah was overthrown 25 years ago. Iran is still a dictatorship, but are the Mullah Teribus, I wouldnt be so cocky about US military capability, currently they dont have any response to the Russian SHKVAL torpedo, a supercavitating torpedo which can go 230mph underwater by creating a gas bubble in front of it. (a malfunction in one of these reportedly brought down the Kursk) not that Iran necessarily has one, but a Canadian agent was able to secure one for the West a few years ago (much to Putins Chagrin) as far as the the US navy's ability to detect intrusions, wasnt there an Iraqi fishing boat that collided with a carrier a couple of years ago. Seems a bit too close to me. as far as Chinas willingness to dump US treasury bills, a drop in the value of the US dollar would hurt CHina as well since their currency is still pegged to it. On the other hand many nations are quietly moving their savings out of US funds, since they are apprehensive about the deepest deficit of any country in history. And it's beginning to appear that the reason that Bush and his advisors say that deficits dont matter anymore is because they can devalue the dollar as he did in 04' and Nixon did in 71 and pass on the cost to the rest of the world. see here coming war with iran I should say that a bit of this article is over the top, with the current international mood on Iran its unlikely we will switch trading oil from US dollars to Euros, but there are some valid points about the power of the US dollar, it was not that long ago that Pounds sterling were the International currency of choice. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 02:13 PM (#1666245) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Amos Is it just me? Or does the recent counterpoint in this thread -- packing the U-haul, heating oil to cook some eggs and planning house move threading a fine harmony against the (perhaps) basso profundo of international war, nuclear threats and conspiracies to slaughter humans strike anyone else as, well, a bit bizarre? Perhaops dissonant? A |
|
10 Feb 06 - 02:22 PM (#1666255) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Kaleea In the 70's, on the heels of the Viet Nam war--oops, I forget, was it a police action or a conflict?---anyhoo, as a civilian working as Choir director for Army chapels, I saw the training begin for desert war down at Ft. Sill, OK, the field artillery training facility for the for the Army at the time. I saw some strange looking vehicles, & one motorpool feller was telling me all about the new vehicles being made for desert warfare. Very exciting stuff. (?) I eventually asked the Col. at the chapel what he thought about it all. (this was about '77 or 78 ish. When this fellow made general someone told me he was the youngest man so far in the US Army to do so. A good, moral family man who did not relish war, having seen a few tours in Nam.) He said that the next big war would be probably start in Afghanistan & Iraq, move into surrounding areas out to North Korea & it would lead to WWIII, unless the world leaders at the (future) time got serious about reigning in the religious extremists around the world. Let me emphasize that I am paraphrasing what he said, & these are not my judgements for or against any particular peoples. Several months before Geo. the 1st attacked Kuwait, I was in Oklahoma & I saw alot of those same strange looking vehicles plus wierd things I'd never seen, in really wierd color camo, being transported south via train. The words of that Col. flashed in my mind. Then, months later, when I saw the war live on the news, I knew that the (then) Col. had some idea of the truth. Now I wonder if those world leaders exhist who can reign in the religious extremists of the planet-be they East or the West. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 03:18 PM (#1666300) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Anonny Mouse I don't give a flying fig about who's posting from where, or when. If you don't find some credibility in the two links posted, you're living in a cave. I ain't sayin' it's a foregone conclusion. Just enough credibiltiy to make it read like a possible, if not likely, scenario. As I said before, one hopes that the current world-leaders (including Mr. BUSH) will consider these possibilities. I ain't so sure! |
|
10 Feb 06 - 03:22 PM (#1666303) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST OK all right already, do we nuke them first or not?! |
|
10 Feb 06 - 03:29 PM (#1666306) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Divis Sweeney Just for the record the Provisional Irish Republican Army will take no part in this war. Sorry if you don't understand this but, the usual anti Irish suspects came in on the Abu Hamza Guilty thread for a bit of paddy bashing, no doubt they will arrive here to. Just thought it best to get first shout in. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 03:48 PM (#1666318) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 Thanks Divis .... those culprits will most likely be here soon. So ya better get out now before the real bizarre posts start happening. That's what I'm gonna do. Amos ... I'm pleased you found that little interlude of harmony and civility pleasing in this debate of world apocalyptic events. I certainly did. Now my proposal for the solution is that the western world just surrender now ... give up all it's assets in the middle east, let the law of Islam rule the courts of our nations (sorry girls and connoisseurs of pork and liquor but there has to be some sacrifces made). As to the state of Israel, either they too surrendor, or may God have mercy on them. That's my 2 cents of contributions to this thread. adios sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 04:22 PM (#1666339) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Is "nuking people first" a policy you would applaud in someone else, Guest? Someone who is not an ally? I thought not. It's amazing how people can rationally justify the most awful things in their own minds, the most criminal acts, as long as they propose doing them to someone else, isn't it? What would the USA have thought of someone else (other than the Anglo nations) who, in 1945, dropped A-bombs on cities? Who burned out Dresden? "War criminals!" is what they would have thought. Well, they would have been quite right about that. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 04:28 PM (#1666340) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: CarolC Is it just me? Or does the recent counterpoint in this thread -- packing the U-haul, heating oil to cook some eggs and planning house move threading a fine harmony against the (perhaps) basso profundo of international war, nuclear threats and conspiracies to slaughter humans strike anyone else as, well, a bit bizarre? Perhaops dissonant? Totally, Amos. But isn't that how it always is in war? Now my proposal for the solution is that the western world just surrender now ... give up all it's assets in the middle east, let the law of Islam rule the courts of our nations (sorry girls and connoisseurs of pork and liquor but there has to be some sacrifces made). As to the state of Israel, either they too surrendor, or may God have mercy on them. Nah... we just need to stop interfering in other countries attempts to get on with their lives. And that's what Israel needs to do as well. As long as we keep putting the bulk of our resources into creating mayhem and instability in other people's countries, the results of those efforts will keep coming back to bite us on the ass. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 07:22 PM (#1666460) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: jaze Amos, I like your scenario far better. There's always hope sane minds will prevail. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 07:37 PM (#1666467) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Once Famous There is no sanity when you are dealing with a 7th century mentality. Like I said, it will end up as us or them. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 10:29 PM (#1666549) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST If religious leaders cause the trouble, get rid of the religious leaders. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 10:53 PM (#1666559) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk You will also have to get rid of the corporate leaders and the politicians, because a whole lot of this is driven by money. What if we got rid of our massive dependency on oil by more actively seeking other energy sources? That might help a lot. I agree though, that the crazy religious leaders are a very big part of the problem. No question about it. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:20 PM (#1666586) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 "You will also have to get rid of the corporate leaders and the politicians, because a whole lot of this is driven by money" Yeah, then we would be out of our jobs, for those who have jobs. Then we would have no more medicare or social services. In short our infrastructure that we have come to luv so much will disappear, and admit it we do luv it and are used to it, sitting here on our computer systems connected to a high speed service, munchin on our granny smith apples that have been imported from some other place on the continent, listening to one of our favourite cds that has been manufactured in some high tech plastics company on our Japanese sound systems manufacured somewhere in the Orient by a low paid worker more than likely living in a totalatarian government. Yes,nice and comfy, well entertained, our bellies full, safe and sound in our relatively civilized society that is realtively free with everything at our disposal. Ya know something I aint complaining about the life we live here. Sure, it has it's faults and there certainly is room for improvement, and ya know what, most of the non free world would love to have our lives. sIx sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:27 PM (#1666593) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Whoa! Let me be more clear, then. I love having my life here, Number 6! I don't mean get rid of ALL corporate CEOs and politicians en masse, I mean get rid of the specific ones who have sold their souls for money and value their payoffs over and above the lives and welfare of their own citizenry...and people elsewhere. Prosecute those CEOs, and vote out those politicians. Of course, it's only a pleasant fantasy. Similar to the pleasant fantasy of getting rid of all the crazy religious leaders. We wish... |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:31 PM (#1666596) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: number 6 I know L.H. exactly what you meant .... just me rantin on again at the keyboard. Those crazy religeous leaders I think are the root of all the evil and pain. I wish everyone could be as rich as us, and I certainly do not mean in the economical sense .... just rich in the goodness we have ... and what we can share. sIx |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:39 PM (#1666604) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Ron Davies As a registered Republican (albeit not one who supported either W or his daddy), I would like to state my view. Based on Bush's track record leading up to the Iraq war, as well as his conduct since, I hope that this time Congress insists that Bush come to them for a declaration of war. Then I hope Congress turns him down. If he then attacks Iran despite that, he and Cheney should be impeached, convicted, and removed from office. Then he should be sent back to Crawford TX, to run for dogcatcher--and lose. Then he and Cheney should start their community service emptying bedpans in VA hospitals, about 80 hours per week--- (there will obviously be more soldiers in those hospitals---for the rest of their born days. |
|
10 Feb 06 - 11:50 PM (#1666615) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Peace I think that one of two things will have to happen regarding Iran. 1) The present leader will have to fall down some stairs and break his neck and then be replaced by someone with a brain. 2) Iran will have to be 'invaded', although not with land troops. (If you thought that Vietnam was a quagmire, try having a good look at Iran's geography. See Google maps, and then give a thought to the USSR in Afghanistan.) |
|
11 Feb 06 - 12:54 AM (#1666633) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: LadyJean Here's to the day when young Iran gives the mullahs the boot, and parties in the town square wearing the screaming bright colors Iranians love, belly dancing (They're great belly dancers.) and washing down gaz (An Iranian sweet, not unlike Turkish Taffy.) with soda pop. I don't think dubyah is going to get us into a war with Iran, because he knows it would be too expensive, and we won't have the manpower without a draft, and if he institutes that draft, he will lose a good deal of his support. I think he's rattling his saber to distract us from his innumerable mistakes. It ain't gonna work George! |
|
11 Feb 06 - 03:24 AM (#1666657) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST "...he will lose a good deal of his support." At this stage of the game, I don't think he cares about being supported. He doesn't have to be popular. He has a couple of years to continue his economic coup and then he is set for life and then some. I too, would like to see a return of Persian Pride but its not enough to overthrow the mullahs, you have to have someone to take their place. Someone who will reject the Arab style of politics. Someone who will give a homeland to the Kurds. Someone who will be strong enough to stand up to Israel. Thats a pretty tall order. Maybe thats why the Mullahs are in power for the time being. |
|
14 Feb 06 - 05:17 PM (#1668535) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce from another thread... Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea? From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 21 Dec 05 - 03:16 PM Defense News 12/16/05 By Agence France-Presse, Berlin Iran has bought 18 BM-25 missiles from North Korea which the Islamic Republic wants to transform to extend their range, the German press reported Dec 16. "Iran has bought 18 disassmbled BM-25 missiles from North Korea with a range of 2500 kilometers ( 1553 miles)," Bild newspaper said, citing a report from German secret services. It added that Iran's ultra-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to have the range of the missiles "extended to 3500 kilometers". The newspaper said that until now Iran only had Shehab-3 missiles with a range of 1300 kilometers. |
|
14 Feb 06 - 05:58 PM (#1668561) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Yes, like any country that expects to be attacked (example: Israel) they seek a deterrent capability. But they're evil and insane, so we can't allow them a deterrent capability such as we allow ourselves, can we? (being a little satirical there...) |
|
15 Feb 06 - 06:57 AM (#1669158) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce LH, So the comment by the head of government that another country should be destroyed is ok? The UN is the one that Iraq signed the treaty with, to NOT seek nuclear weapons. Israel is a member of the UN- Iraq is in effect declaring war on the rest of the world. |
|
15 Feb 06 - 07:22 AM (#1669177) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Teribus Little Hawk - 14 Feb 06 - 05:58 PM "Yes, like any country that expects to be attacked (example: Israel) they seek a deterrent capability. But they're evil and insane, so we can't allow them a deterrent capability such as we allow ourselves, can we?" In stating the above why not mention that Israel were not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and as such are not bound by any of its terms or conditions (Same applies to India & Pakistan). Iran on the other hand was a signatory and is bound by those terms and conditions. It has not met its obligations under the terms of the treaty and now has a head of state that wishes to see an country that the UN recognises "Wiped from map". As science cannot dis-invented the nuclear powers at the time of the signing of the treaty were allowed to keep their weapons and were to engage in the process of disarmament. There were at that time five nuclear powers, the USA and the USSR started the disarming process, but this was halted when first India then Pakistan announced that they too had nuclear weapons. There is no double standard with regard to Iran having nuclear weapons, please do not try to portray the situation as it is not. |
|
15 Feb 06 - 09:21 AM (#1669284) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST,Larry K Little Hawk said that there were three countries (Iran, USA, and Israel) most likely to use a nuclear weapon pre-emprively. I would like to add a few more names to the list: North Korea- How can anyone seriously leave them out of that list Al Queda Syria Russia China Palestinians under Hamas Somalia Pakistan India Saudi Arabia Libia Venezueala Cuba Phillipines And the beat goes on. Even if someof these countries don't have nuclear capability today, they will have it in the future, or will have the ability to buy nuclear weapons from brokers or terrorists. Unfortunately, there are many nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union that are unnacounted for. And the beat goes on. Waiting for Iran to overthrow their government (as Amos suggested) was the same stretegy that Bush 41 used with Iraq. Intelligence said that Sadaam was weakened and would be overthrown by his people. We see how well that strategy worked out. It is nice to see however, how Amos and Bush 41 are on the same page. |
|
15 Feb 06 - 11:41 AM (#1669419) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Bunnahabhain You really want to disarm the Middle East? The whole messy lot of them without firing a shot? Here's how. STOP BUYING THEIR OIL. It's that simple. Build a big collection of nuclear reactors around the coast, and alot of Hydrolysis plants. You've now got electricty and Hydrogen to run surface transport. You get serious about this, engineers should be able to get fusion reactors working remarkably soon. It should be cleaner and cheaper. We're pouring money into the area like oil onto flames, and with much the same effect. |
|
15 Feb 06 - 12:19 PM (#1669464) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Wolfgang IRAN: consequences of a war An air attack on Iran by Israeli or US forces would be aimed at setting back Iran's nuclear programme by at least five years. A ground offensive by the United States to terminate the regime is not feasible given other commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would not be attempted.... One key response from Iran would be a determination to reconstruct a nuclear programme and develop it rapidly into a nuclear weapons capability, with this accompanied by withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would require further attacks. A military operation against Iran would not, therefore, be a short-term matter but would set in motion a complex and long-lasting confrontation. It follows that military action should be firmly ruled out and alternative strategies developed.... While Israel would gain in the short term from an attack on Iran, the longer-term consequences would be far less positive. (from a research group who had been quite good in predicting the outcome of the Iraq war) Wolfgang |
|
15 Feb 06 - 12:31 PM (#1669474) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk I'd agree with you on some of those, Larry K. Not all, but some of them. I think North Korea, for example, has those bombs for defensive purposes, as it would be totally asinine and suicidal of them to think of attacking anyone with them first. On the other hand, it is fairly unlikely that anyone will attack them now, since they apparently have a few nukes to fire off in that scenario. I've been to Cuba, and I think it is almost inconceivable that the Cubans would imperil themselves by being the first to fire a nuke at somebody. What would be the point? Useless and again, suicidal. If they had nukes already, though, it would certainly make other people less likely to invade them, wouldn't it? Al Queda? You betcha! I agree with you there. Since Al Queda is not technically located anywhere specific that can easily be targeted accurately, they would be delighted to hit someone with a nuke. India and Pakistan. Yeah, possibly... Anyway, haven't got time to go through them all right now. I've read a lot of stuff on the Net about Iran, and it's interesting how totally divergent the opinions are (depending on what axe the writer wants to grind). People are so prejudiced and subjective...how does one know who is telling the truth? Some insist that Iran IS trying to make nuclear-grade Uranium. Others say that Iran is merely trying to make enriched Uranium such as is required to fuel their reactor, to generate electrical power, and they DO have a legal right to do that, do they not? And why shouldn't they? As I am not there, am not a nuclear scientist, and do not know who is telling the final truth about it, I have no way of knowing if all this hoopla is real...or if it's just the propaganda runup to launching Bush's or Israel's next war of convenience. I don't know. You don't know. None of us know. We just have our opinions, and our opinions are governed by our prejudices, which are in many cases extreme prejudices. Yes, the president of Iran has said inflammatory things about wiping Israel off the map. So have any number of other Muslim personages in many countries. It's what their constituency likes to hear. So what? Does Iran actually have a capability to seriously threaten Israel? I don't think so, because Israel can obliterate them with a massive nuclear response, and they know it. Pancho does not rob the train when the train is carrying 1,000 well-armed soldiers with gatling guns and Pancho has a gang of 30 men with rifles. What Iran can do, if it someday has a few nukes, is deter the USA and Israel from directly attacking Iran. The USA and Israel don't like being deterred, because they would rather be free to attack whom they please, whenever they please, with no real risk of serious loss in return...like shooting fish in a barrel. Like Iraq and Serbia and Afghanistan. I am suspicious that this is just another manufactured propaganda exercise, like the old and now discredited one about Iraq's nonexistent WMD. If I was the Iranians, I would be almost 100% sure that I was going to be attacked shortly, and I would be desperate to get nuclear weapons ASAP just to deter that attack. But if I was Israel, I'd probably be so paranoid by now as to feel that it was necessary to attack Iran immediately to forestall that from ever happening... Sounds like a no-win situation to me. When you've got 2 sets of people who both think the other is insane, ungodly, treacherous, and totally murderous, how do you get them to deal fairly and honestly with one another? |
|
15 Feb 06 - 01:19 PM (#1669517) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST What Iran can do, if it someday has a few nukes, is deter the USA and Israel from directly attacking Iran. No. A few nukes are not a deterent. Lotsa nukes are a deterent. "The Wasteland" Shoot the Iranian idiot now and stop a nuclear exchange. That's your option. Kill one asshole now or kill lotsa people later. Your call. |
|
15 Feb 06 - 01:55 PM (#1669559) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk The one guy you kill now would most likely be replaced by another similar "bad guy" soon enough, as long as the unresolved disputes go on. And why is it that we countenance murder so easily in ourselves, but not in others? How would you react if the president of the USA or the leader of Israel were assassinated by Muslims? Or if a Muslim posted here, suggesting that that would be a good and desirable thing to do? What makes you that special, that the moral rules regarding premeditated murder don't apply to you? What makes you so good? Is God on your side? ;-) Can you prove it? You may be right that a few nukes is not a viable deterrent (to the USA). If so, we can eventually expect a war in Korea, I suppose. It will benefit no one, if it comes. I think a few nukes, as long as they're mounted on a deliverable weapons system, would be a viable deterrent to Israel lauching a first strike, though, simply because Israel is in a very small geographical area. They could not afford even one or two nuclear explosions within their own borders, could they? |
|
15 Feb 06 - 03:15 PM (#1669622) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST Your logic is falling apart. If Israel wanted to first-strike the bastards they would have done so already. Recall the Syrian nuclear reactor at Osiraq. |
|
15 Feb 06 - 03:21 PM (#1669627) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk They have done so already, when they attacked the Iraqi facilities. But I am not offering cut and dried solutions here or saying I have the answers...I am simply discussing an infernally complicated mess. |
|
15 Feb 06 - 03:21 PM (#1669628) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST If you dont want a war with iran, kill off their leadership now the sooner the better because if you leave their command structures in place you allow them time to organize themselves and thus cause further loss to your own troops it is foolish to think you can reason with them |
|
15 Feb 06 - 03:34 PM (#1669645) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk I think you can reason with almost anyone when it comes to sheer pragmatism. You lay your cards on the table, and state your position. It works better than insults and threats. However, assuming you are correct in your strategy, how would you propose to kill off their leaders? They were (presumably) trying to kill or capture Saddam too, and it took a full scale invasion and months of searching for him afterwards. They probably feel the same way you do... "you can't reason with those people". That's the kind of one-sided thinking that always drives these vicious disputes. |
|
15 Feb 06 - 08:54 PM (#1669860) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST how's this: No, asshole, you can't have weapons of mass destruction because we thing you are mad enough to use them try to get some and you will be shot get some and you'll wake up dead try to use some and your country will disappear |
|
15 Feb 06 - 09:30 PM (#1669871) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Quite aside from the double standard problem ("I'm sane and good...you aren't...therefore I will kill you if you try to arm yourself against me in anything like an equal fashion.").............now, who would react well to a line like that coming from an already established deadly enemy? LOL! Would you? But quite aside from that...what they are presently doing is enriching small amounts of Uranium to fuel a nuclear reactor to make electric power. There is no proof whatsoever that they are building A-bombs, nor is there any proof suggesting they can. They would need much more highly enriched Uranium in far larger amounts to build bombs. They are estimated to have a mere fraction of the centrifuges required for such an effort. You cannot justify killing an entire country for making fuel for a nuclear reactor when the NPT gives them the legal right to do so! Which it does. You have established a Catch-22, just like was done with Saddam. You want the Iranians to prove that something doesn't exist. If it doesn't, how will they prove it to those who don't care about proof? Saddam did not have the WMD. I doubt the Iranians do either, and I don't think they're anywhere near it. However, I may be wrong. Are you willing to admit also that you may be wrong? If so, you are contemplating killing a lot of people over doing what they already have the legal right to under the NPT, and what is no threat to anyone...using a nuclear power plant to provide electricity. This may be another snow job to set the stage for a war, just like the phony Iraqi baby-killing story from the first Gulf War, just like the phony WMD scare from the 2nd Iraq war. |
|
15 Feb 06 - 10:05 PM (#1669887) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST The countries that have nukes have not used them--excepting the US in 1945. The Israelis have had nukes for over 20 years. They haven't used them. More people having nukes increases the likelihood that one of the new 'players' will get 'offensive' with them and then lotsa people will start to use nukes. If I have a choice to trust Israel and the US with nukes or to trust Iran with nukes--there is no question who I will trust. My preference is that there be none of the goddamned things on the planet. Iran's leader has already shown himself to be a crackpot. He has already advocated mass murder. What is there to reason with? And why? The fucker should become one with the Earth. Soonest, IMO. |
|
15 Feb 06 - 11:35 PM (#1669924) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST,Cluin Whoooeee, we're all gonna die! |
|
16 Feb 06 - 03:33 PM (#1670110) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce Sorry, LH... "PARIS, France (CNN) -- Iran's nuclear activity is a cover for a clandestine weapons program, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy has said in France's most direct attack on Tehran in the escalating international dispute. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator immediately dismissed the charge, insisting that Iran did not "want to have the bomb." Douste-Blazy's bold statement on Thursday appeared to reflect mounting exasperation and a tougher stance than European negotiators had previously maintained in their efforts to persuade Iran to suspend nuclear activities. "No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program," Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television. "The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren't listening to us." " http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.france/index.html |
|
16 Feb 06 - 03:45 PM (#1670128) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Amos 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 |
|
16 Feb 06 - 03:49 PM (#1670133) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce 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) |
|
16 Feb 06 - 03:50 PM (#1670136) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST,petr 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 04:37 PM (#1670208) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 04:42 PM (#1670217) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 04:52 PM (#1670236) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 05:01 PM (#1670255) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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". |
|
16 Feb 06 - 05:05 PM (#1670262) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce 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?) |
|
16 Feb 06 - 05:14 PM (#1670272) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 05:23 PM (#1670287) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Peace Canada sold Candu reactors to India. India enriched uranium and exploded a few bombs. Anyone remember that? |
|
16 Feb 06 - 05:27 PM (#1670293) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce 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? |
|
16 Feb 06 - 05:29 PM (#1670300) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Peace With you on that, BB. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 05:33 PM (#1670306) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce 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? |
|
16 Feb 06 - 06:00 PM (#1670339) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 06:08 PM (#1670345) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 06:49 PM (#1670382) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Peace "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? |
|
16 Feb 06 - 07:07 PM (#1670399) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 07:11 PM (#1670404) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Peace 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 07:18 PM (#1670411) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
16 Feb 06 - 07:21 PM (#1670417) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Peace Iran is run by a fucking lunatic. That is why they should not have nukes. IMO. Last remark on it from me. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 07:21 PM (#1670419) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST,petr 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 |
|
16 Feb 06 - 07:32 PM (#1670428) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Peace 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 07:33 PM (#1670431) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk Good article. I think Gwynne Dyer has it right. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 07:39 PM (#1670442) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 07:46 PM (#1670460) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Peace 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 07:48 PM (#1670466) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 08:07 PM (#1670487) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST,petr 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.. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 08:10 PM (#1670493) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Peace 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 08:42 PM (#1670526) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Teribus 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 08:45 PM (#1670531) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 08:46 PM (#1670533) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Peace 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. |
|
16 Feb 06 - 11:29 PM (#1670676) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: GUEST,dianavan 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." |
|
17 Feb 06 - 02:16 AM (#1670828) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Teribus 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". |
|
17 Feb 06 - 02:38 AM (#1670833) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Barry Finn 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 |
|
17 Feb 06 - 06:59 AM (#1670939) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T 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. |
|
17 Feb 06 - 08:46 AM (#1671017) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
17 Feb 06 - 09:55 AM (#1671063) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: beardedbruce "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& |
|
17 Feb 06 - 07:06 PM (#1671493) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: akenaton 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. |
|
17 Feb 06 - 08:11 PM (#1671545) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
17 Feb 06 - 08:23 PM (#1671557) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: akenaton Sittin' on the fence again George? :0) |
|
17 Feb 06 - 08:27 PM (#1671560) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Bobert 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... |
|
17 Feb 06 - 08:30 PM (#1671564) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
18 Feb 06 - 04:23 AM (#1671753) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Teribus 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. |
|
18 Feb 06 - 05:17 AM (#1671781) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Teribus 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. |
|
18 Feb 06 - 01:48 PM (#1672062) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: akenaton 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 |
|
18 Feb 06 - 06:32 PM (#1672369) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: DougR 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 |
|
18 Feb 06 - 08:09 PM (#1672450) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Little Hawk 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) |
|
19 Feb 06 - 02:58 AM (#1672618) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Teribus Doesn't alter the fact that Pilger is taking crap Akenaton |
|
19 Feb 06 - 04:03 AM (#1672634) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: akenaton 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 |
|
19 Feb 06 - 07:17 AM (#1672693) Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran? From: Teribus 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. |
