BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM

An impressive but irrelevant and meaningless list Stigweard, particularly when you consider much of the period is covered by international "ping-pong" match that was known as "The Cold War".

Have a ramble through your list and see how many items are duplicated, which sort of begs the question if a Resolution was proposed once and vetoed, why would its chances of not being vetoed increase with the passage of time.

Liked the ones about human rights and Israel, where were the ones about human rights and Iraq/Syria/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/USSR/China/North Korea/Libya/etc/etc/etc??

The one in 1979 calling for the return of all those expelled by Israel - Now where in that Resolution did it mention the return of all Jews expelled by Arab States and/or compensation for their loss of property?

I could go on, but won't. The United Nations is an absolute disgrace, and it always has been. It has resolved little or nothing in the entire term of its sorry existence. In short it is a complete and utter joke and needs to radically reform itself or be consigned to the dustbin of insignificance.

By the bye I was not aware that the US had ever lent a hand in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The USSR yes, China yes, North Korea yes, but the USA No.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:33 AM

Well Teribus, at least we're agreed on one thing - the use of the UN veto by nations acting in their own self-interest is to be deplored. Especially by nations run by a religious fundamentalist who condones the use of kidnap, torture and the proliferation of WMDs.

A quick pike at this list gives some idea of the motivation of this rogue state over the years:

List of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by the USA, 1972 - 2002

(Russia has used their veto TWICE)
Year: Resolution Vetoed by the USA

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs ofstates.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq.
18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon.
2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.
8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 07:46 AM

No it doesn't Stigweard read it again:

"That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441"

Now what was required to be done to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441?

The passage you quoted (the motion to be debated and voted upon by the House of Commons) contains only 2 references to WMD but 10 references to UN Security Council Resolutions. And this causes you to state categorically that - "The reason for going to war was to find WMDs."

The reason given was the UN Authority handed down to the beligerent powers under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 678, in order to ensure compliance by Iraq of the Safwan Cease-Fire Agreement detailed in UN Security Council Resolution 687 all of which were detailed in UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which acted as the bridging document covering all outstanding resolutions related to Iraq.

Your linked Sydney Herald article dated almost a year after the invasion is hardly "in the immediate aftermath". That article too is written on the premise that WMD had to be found - they didn't. The article details precisely what is wrong with the media today when it comes to supposed reporting of news. MSM no longer reports anything, they comment, speculate and opinionate, they most certainly could never be accused of objectively reporting any event or situation.

As you correctly point out, the full text of the debate is available from Hansard. Did you actually read it? Because it leaves me, and anyone else who reads it, in no doubt about the doubts, uncertainties and suspicions relating to Iraq's WMD that existed at that time. What was posited as justification for the invasion of Iraq as the main thrust of Blair's argument was based on the potential threat the presence of WMDs in Iraq posed and the imperitive need to ensure beyond all doubt that Iraq was disarmed in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions for the peace, security and stability of the region.

I rather liked the reference in the debate by one MP who observed that Chirac, having stated that France would use its veto irrespective, had managed to disarm the UN instead of disarming Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:08 AM

The reason for going to war was to find WMDs - this report from the Sydney Morning Herald reminds us in the immediate aftermath of the invasion what Bush and Blair had told the world in the run-up. The idea there was some sort of reasoned discussion about regime change in the days before the war is a fallacy.

Blair's motion in the Iraq debate reads:

"That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine."

This statement is implicit - the reason for war was to disarm Saddam of WMD's and then deal with the consequences. The full text of the debate is available from Hansard and leaves you in no doubt WMDs were being posited as justification for the invasion of Iraq as the main thrust of Blair's argument is based on the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:45 AM

Guest 282RA:

"Bruce. I've asked you and Teribus at least a dozen times now to produce the 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter that said Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and you both not only failed to direct me to this report, you pretended like you didn't notice anyone was requesting it. That pretty much makes you a goner in my book. Two complete shit-talking idiots without a shred of credibility."

Now without looking back through my posts I do not believe that I have ever said that there was a report authored by Blix and Ritter that categorically stated that Iraq had 25,000 litres of Anthrax and 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin.

What I have previously referred to were the UNSCOM Reports to the United nations security Council of January 1999 and the later Report of March 1999 in which they Reported the status regarding WMD, WMD Research & Development programmes, stockpiles of WMD agents & precursors, munitions and missile inventory. It was those reports that detailed the discrepancies that existed between raw materials purchased and used, agents produced and weaponised, munitions made and used against what they could verify as having been destroyed. The information used was that supplied by the Iraqi Authorities, their suppliers, manufacturing records, etc. The UNSCOM Reports were careful to state that the shortfalls as detailed could only indicate what Iraq might possess. In my posts I have provided links to both those reports by way of substantiation.

The trouble with the anti-Bush camp is that they have fixated on the gross inaccuracy that the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was about any single issue, be it "WMD", or "Regime Change". The March 2003 invasion of Iraq was carried out to ensure beyond doubt that Iraq was placed in compliance with all the terms and conditions it signed up to at Safwan on 3rd March 1991 and formalised on 3rd April 1991 as United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. Note Guest 282RA compliance with all terms and conditions, there were quite a few of them, so please do not try to reduce the situation that existed to any "single" cause, that is deliberate misrepresentation.

With egard to WMD, the anti-Bush camp have fixated on the false premise that WMD had to be found to justify the invasion and make it alright with the world. The fallacy that there had to be a "smoking gun". The object of the exercise was to make sure that Iraq did not have any of these weapons, was not stockpiling materials that could be used for their manufacture, was not running any R&D programmes targeted at reviving WMD some time in the future once sanctions were lifted, was not designing weapons delivery systems that could threaten its neighbours near and far.

On "Regime Change" the anti-Bush camp seem reluctant to accept that the desirability of regime change in Iraq was enshrined as part of US Foreign Policy long before GWB came to office. That particular bit of meddling in another nations affairs was put in place by the previous administration - they were correct in doing so. Now back to events of summer 2002 to spring 2003, with regard to "Regime Change". Saddam Hussein, as previously stated, was given every single opportunity to co-operate and show the world that he and his government were being fully open and transparent in their dealings with the international community, he chose not to do so. Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to step down, he chose not to do so. Had he decided differently the war would not have happened.

Now Guest 282RA a question of mine that you have been assiduously ducking, since you brought it up:

Now how exactly did us Brits embarrass ourselves fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands? - the floor is yours

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 11:40 PM

Here's the story so far.

Bush threatened to invade Iran not because he thought they were making nukes--he knew they weren't. He was doing it to force al-Sadr to stand his army down. Yes, invading Iraq would lose the war for us irrevocably but Bush had nothing more to lose than and was well on his way to losing it anyway so why just attack Iran? It would fuck up the Middle way more than it would us. It would hurt al-Sadr immensely. A suicide mission on our part but one al-Sadr can ill afford.

So al-Sadr stood his army down rather than risk the entire Middle East descending into war and chaos and possiblity of nukes being used and his support network being incinerated. Then Bush armed the Sunnis on the promise that they would use the weapons against al-Qaeda only and the Sunnis agreed. That stopped them from shooting at us.

The problem is, al-Sadr then demanded that Bush announced that Iran had no nuke program or all bets were off. Bush can't let this relative calm get away so he admitted Iran had no nuke program. This has infuriated Josh Bolton and Cheney and other hawks because attacking Iran was their ace in the hole. With Bush admitting that Iran has no nuke program, he has no rationale for attacking Iran if the violence in Iraq resumes and, of course, it will.

So Bolton is beside himself shouting that the new intel report is all politics and that Iran is as dangerous the administration has been saying previously.

IOW, we've lost. We can't attack Iran now. We have no political solution for Iraq and we cut Afghanistan loose long ago and it's drifting inevitably into Taliban hands.

Meanwhile, the military is in disarray. The marine corps doesn't want all these MRAPS with the reduced violence and because they can't go where they need to take them to pursue troublemakers and they are too expensive and too huge to store but Congress is insisting they take them--so that's a small war in and of itself. The other problem is that part of the Army brass now wants deployments scaled back to 12 months again because the violence is reduced and the 15-month deployments are draining the energy and morale out of the troops. But commanders in the field are adamant that we can't scale back because the relative calm is still too violent and could flare back up in a moment's notice so we have to stay ready.

It's a catch-22 all around for the military. They're all dressed up with no place to go and the situation cannot be sustained. All al-Sadr has to do is sit back and watch us implode because we can't explode since we can't attack Iran, can't win in Iraq and have already cut Afghanistan loose.

Iran was our last gambit and Bolton knows it. Bush has dealt away his ace in the hole in hopes of some kind of better legacy and Bolton is hopping mad about it. He realizes what Bush has just done. It's over. Just a matter of time now.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 11:18 PM

Shut up, Bruce. I've asked you and Teribus at least a dozen times now to produce the 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter that said Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and you both not only failed to direct me to this report, you pretended like you didn't notice anyone was requesting it. That pretty much makes you a goner in my book. Two complete shit-talking idiots without a shred of credibility.

I will hound you and Teribus until one of you answers my request by either producing said report or admitting there isn't one. So where is it? I'm waiting. Come on, Brucie-baby, here's your chance to shut me up. Let's see it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 10:01 PM

Sorry, McGrath, that does not seem to agree with what Bobert claims.


And we know he is always right- after all, he said so.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 10:00 PM

...Bush forgot the "if" in his October 23rd speech where he said: "Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missles of incereasing range that could deliver them"... Hmmmmmm, so much for the "if defense" here...

I presented the evidence that IRAN HAS been pursuing the technology that could be used to produce the ballistic missiles, and that the continued production of enriched weapons grade fissionable material is obviously aimed at "could be used to produce nuclear weapons"

So still no lie. Unless you have a peaceful use for weapons grade fissionable materials? They are too enriched to use in reactors, and would have to be diluted back down for peaceful use.



"Saddam and the Iraqi governemnt were allowing Hanz Blix to inspect wherever they wanted..."

NOT according to the report to the UN by Blix that was required under 1441- the LAST chance for that cooperation.


So, Bobert, is that you final answer???

Seems that your arguments come up short of reality!!!

I know...Danged!!! But when you have something to refute what * I * have stated, feel free to present it.



So, after he sees the preperations for intervention by force, Saddam stated that he would then allow the inspections that he had been required to allow for the previous 12 years and failed to allow. Do you believe that he would have allowed them, once the threat of force had been removed?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM

Of course he could equally have said of just about any moderately technologically advanced country that it was "pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missles of increasing range that could deliver them".

In fact that is just another way of saying it has a moderate level of technological advancement. "Could be" can cover absolutely every eventuality.

A country manufacturing box cutters is pursuing the technology that "could be" used to carry out a 911 type attack. A shop selling cigarette lighters is supplying the technology that "could be" used to burn down a city.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 08:04 PM

Ummmm, not to be splitting hairs here, bb, but if I read your argument here is that it was okay for Bush to bring up the WWIII thing just as long as it was preclued with an "if"...

Well, I have two thoughts here:

First, what was the intent of the October 17th WWIII speech??? He could have just as easilly said that about Alabama or Sweden or any state or country for that matter... But, no, he played the "if", which BTW is a two leeter word and then followed it with a barrage of propaganda that had been written by his handlers filled with fear-mongering... Tghis is how the US got itself into Iraqmire... By not paying attention to the two letter words but concentrating on the propaganda that follows...

Secondly, I hate to burst your bubble since you have laid out the "if defense" but...

...Bush forgot the "if" in his October 23rd speech where he said: "Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missles of incereasing range that could deliver them"... Hmmmmmm, so much for the "if defense" here...

So, bb, is that you final answer???

Seems that your arguments come up ***two*** letters short!!! I know...Danged!!!

You gotta spend just a little more time actually reading... I'm lexdexic so it takes me a while to plunge thru this stuff but I use pointers and underline and end up rereading stuff 3 or 4 times... It helps... Maybe you need some lexdixic pills fir yerself... Really gets the comprehension way up... Just real slow...

Yo, T... Don't Bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me... Saddam and the Iraqi governemnt were allowing Hanz Blix to inspect wherever they wanted... Just how much cooperation were you looking for Saddam to provide??? Wash their cars and do their laundry???

I mean, like I said, "pass it over to me"....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 07:42 PM

Remember if Saddam had been completely open and had done his utmost to be seen as being completely open there would have been no war.

I think that is a pretty questionable assumption. It seems to be generally agreed that the issue of WPDs was not the central issue for Washington, even if was was for the UK, at least in terms of political tactics.

For Washington the central issue was "regime change". Claims about WMDs, along with attempts to create a belief in an association between Iraq and Al Qaeda, were ways of bolstering support for this central objective.

In the event there was a rush to war, which meant troops being sent into asction inadatequately equipped. It seems likely that a major reason for this may have been that Saddam's regime was in fact starting to cooperate with the arms inspectors in a way that had previously not been the case.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 07:14 PM

Votes can only take place on resolutions that are tabled and seconded Kevin. The veto process as used by the five permanent members stops the resolution being tabled. It only takes one of the five to state that it will veto a resolution and that is it dead in its tracks, majority voting does not come into it.

It came down to the USA and the UK who fully saw the danger of the situation and were trying to keep the lid on things, and France, Russia and China who saw in the same Iran/Iraq scenario an extremely attractive business opportunity.

Remember if Saddam had been completely open and had done his utmost to be seen as being completely open there would have been no war. Totally his choice, although on the subject of "bad intelligence", he was slipped some seriously poor advice from those in his corner, i.e. the French, the Russians and the Chinese.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:31 PM

Chirac of France bluntly told both the US and the UK that irrespective no second resolution would ever be put to a vote because France would use its Veto to block it.

Wasn't it rather that he indicated that, should it come to a vote for immediate war on Iraq, France would vote against it - along with a whole bunch of other members of the Security Council? And of course a vote against by France would mean the resolution would fall, even in the rather unlikely possibility that the it got a majority vote. In any case Russia had already said it would use its veto.

The actual decision not to put the resolution to a vote was taken by its proposers, not by its opponents.

If push had come to shove, this would have been the second occasion ever that France used its veto. (The only other time was in 1976.) The USA has used its veto well over 70 times, and the UK has used its at least eight times.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:21 PM

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/2007/12/dont_trust_a_liar.html


Don't Trust a Liar

**Editor's Note: Due to an editor's error, Mr. Melman's article was incomplete on first publication. The article now follows in its entirety.**

TEL AVIV - Would you allow a pedophile to work in a kindergarten? Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear power without thorough inspections. There are several reasons to justify such a statement. First, all nations who are signatory members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and have agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), known as "Safeguards Agreements," have committed themselves to declare and report their nuclear sites and allowed them to be inspected by IAEA inspectors. There is more to this issue than pure formality. Iran has broken its pledges in this regard. Iran has been cheating IAEA for nearly twenty years – building secret nuclear sites, purchasing nuclear material, conducting tests in plutonium and uranium enrichment, developing a warhead – all without declaring it. So how can Iran be trusted? How can the world believe that a permanent liar has corrected his ways?

Too many commentators have argued, wrongly, that the last U.S. National intelligence Estimate (NIE) exonerates Iran. It doesn't. In fact, it is a powerful indictment. It substantiates the claims of many western intelligence and experts (claims that Iran has consistently denied) that Iran was involved in unlawful, clandestine efforts to build a nuclear bomb. The report reveals that Iran did have an illegal, secret military program in a blatant violation of its international obligations. The fact that Iran, for various reasons, put its military program on hold in 2003 doesn't mean that the country should be praised. You don't compliment a thief for halting his thieving activities. This is the norm.

It went also unnoticed that the report points out that Iran can easily, at almost any given moment, resume its military program. Iran continues to enrich uranium and by doing so makes a mockery of UN Security Council resolutions. It continues to develop its delivery means – long range ballistic missiles. So how can we believe Iran?

There is another interesting observation in the NIE. The report explains that one of the reasons for the Iranian decision to suspend the military program was the international pressure and its fears after the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Iran would be the next one. In other words, it was mainly the U.S.'s military pressure and coercive diplomacy that forced the "Nuclear Ayatollahs" to think twice.

Therefore, with all due respect to the good news emerging from the NIE report, we are not yet arrive on a safe shore. The burden of proof still lies with Iran. It's an Iranian obligation to show to the international community that it fulfills its international commitments and keeps its word.
If indeed Iran genuinely uses its nuclear program SOLELY for civilian purposes, the Middle East is going to be slightly a better place. If not, we shall soon see other nations in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, developing their own nuclear programs. Needless to say, the equation is clear: the more nuclear weapons are spread, the greater the risk of mass destruction that we face.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:14 PM

"a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. "


Is there ANYONE who would stake their families lives on this being a false statement?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 06:10 PM

Bush stated a conditional- IF Iran had a nuclear device THAT would be a scary thing. Will you state that it would not be scary??????


I wish you would try to understand conditionals.


I do get your point about "is"- BUT the report was done after the date you say Bush used present tense- so the conclusions had not been accepted even by the analysts when YOU claim that Bush should only have used past tense.

Why is this such a difficult piece of cronology to wrap yer head around, Bobert?


In addition, the report DOES NOT claim that the program is PRESENTLY not in progress- ONLY that there it had been stopped in 2003, and that there is not enough information to know IF, OR WHEN, it has restarted.

So, since I was unemployed in 2003, you are still saying that I must be unemployed now, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 05:35 PM

No, bb.... You have misread what I have said... And I've now said it several times so read it slowly...

According to the Washington Post Bush had knowledge of the intellegence report sayinf that Iran had curtainled its nuclear program in 2003 ***before*** makin' either his "WWIII" comment or his "Iraq ***is*** pursuing" coment...

Why is this such a difficult piece of cronology to wrap yer head around, bb???

Or am I again confused at what you are trying to get at here???

Just spit it out...

If you think that Bush knowing thie stuff and then making the 2 speeches id fine, then fine... I can understand that might think that way...

I don't think that way but, hey, I think that Bush has repeatedly used lies, half-truths and manipulation to sway public opinion...

Problem is for BUsh, that is...) that mose folks now see Bush for what he is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 05:22 PM

Don't quote so selectively Kevin, what I said put in context was:

"During the summer, autumn and winter of 2002, the world and its dog believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq still possessed WMD, was running WMD research and development programmes and was working on development of missile delivery systems. Clear proof of that is the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously (even Syria voted for it)."

Your post does make a very important point about the workings of the UN Security Council and naivety. Everyone in the council chamber fully realised the urgency of the situation and what the intent of the Resolution tabled by the USA and the UK was.

On one hand you had the UK & USA & the coalition of the willing taking 1441 literally as Iraq's "Last Chance". On the other you had Saddam plus his major trading partners (The three remaining permanent Security Council Members) allaying all fears and advising that the US will not act. The wording of 1441 allowed for no "material breach" of its provisions - all in all there were seven such instances, while the Iraqis co-operated fully on matters relating to access, they were very reluctant when it came to the area of disclosure and Blix was still complaining about this in his last report to the Security Council.

Chirac of France bluntly told both the US and the UK that irrespective no second resolution would ever be put to a vote because France would use its Veto to block it. That in effect hamstrung the UN completely.

The UN sanctions by 2002 were a joke, and both France and Russia were supporting Iraqi suggestions that they be lifted.

During the summer of 2002 the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment plant became public knowledge. Anyone who seriously believes that these facilities, which were built on a massive scale in total secrecy, were constructed for purely peaceful purposes would have to be incredibly naive and trusting, fortunately the IAEA were neither.

Saddam would not let Iran become nuclear capable, Saddam also knew that the French, Russians and Chinese would be only be more than willing to rearm him. The US put the brakes on that situation by tackling the one side of the equation that they could do something about - Iraq and Saddam Husseain.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 02:23 PM

quotes from the Washington Post Dec 8, 2007 article "A futile Quest on Iranian Arms" P A10:

"By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary breifing Nov. 15 in the Situation room to Vice President Cheney, national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials.

The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told the participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others breifed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak."


Now Bobert stated:
""President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two *******after****** he had been told about frssh indidctaions that Iran had actaully halted it's nuclear weapons program.""

So, Bush knew the results of the report last fall that were finalized on Nov. 27, and presented to him the next day ( Nov. 28th)

If Bush can tell the future as well as Bobert claims, maybe we ought to pay attention to what he says...




As for the effect on Middle East ppeace of this so-settling information:

" Had they know before the summit, a senior Israeli official said, "I'm not sure we would have shown up." "

I certainly am glad to know that the Israelis have such confidence in this report that they will now (probably) act on their own, since the report gives those opposed to holding Iran accountable for it's PROVEN violation by the IAEA, and it's CONTINUED ( as stated by the Iranians) enrichment to weapons-grade fissionable material.

Thanks, Bobert, for showing me the TRUTH .

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 12:16 PM

Clear proof of that is the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously (even Syria voted for it).

It's at least as plausible to see that unanimous resolution as representing an attempt to hold off the Americans from attacking Iraq, so Blix and Co could continue to investigate.

The rather naive assumption being that the USA would be obliged to come back to the Security Council to get backing for an attack, if Blix's investigations threw up genuine evidence that Saddam still had the weapons he claimed to have destroyed, and that no attack would happen without such backing.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 12:15 PM

BTW, the IMO ISPS code is a standard International Ship and Port Facility Security code published by the International Maritime Organization.

T, thanks for the reasonable reply. The fact that some people -- and it was far from "the world" -- believed the WMD myth does not justify acting on it as fact without due diligence. In failing, through incuriousity or predisposition toward war, to exercise that diligence, Rove and Bush essentially own the responsibility for the invasion of Iraq. It took only one signature to send our troops across the line from Kuwait. Absent the WMD mythology, the unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation-state is an action of extreme militarism which the U.S. claims not to believe in -- examples of Mexico, Cuba, and the Phillipines notwithstanding.

There is no question that Sadaam brought his troubles on himself. There is no question the world is better without him. If we manage to herd the cats of Baghdad into some for of reasonable political body, we will have done the world a service -- I do not disagree with any of these ideas.

But starting a war without grounds is NOT a prerogative our country has granted the President, and his actions were irresponsible and impolitic, to put the politest terms I can think of on them. The rationalizations for the war were excuses, not genuine causes for war; and going to war in the absence of due causes adequately substantiated is the act of a nutcase.

A




A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 11:43 AM

Well Amos, there appears to be two distinct camps here on Mudcat one rather large one which condemns George W Bush outright and firmly places the blame squarely on his shoulders for all the ills of the world. The other much smaller appreciates the actions taken, and reasoning behind some very hard decisions that have been taken.

Now as far as dreamy interpretations go:

Point 1 - The action taken against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the subsequent toppling of the Taleban in that country came about by some very poor judgement calls on the part of the Taleban leadership. It was entirely in their power as to how they responded to the US request to hand over the leadership of Al-Qaeda. They had experienced US retaliation under Clinton and seriously underestimated the will and strength of purpose of the Bush Administration in the wake of 911, their choice, their mistake.

Point 2 - The vast majority (90%) of civilians killed in Afghanistan have been as the direct result of Taleban actions. If the Taleban had responded to appeals made by the Government since the elections in Afghanistan the death toll would have been greatly reduced and the country would be experiencing the benefits and prosperity its people so richly deserve.

Point 3 - During the summer, autumn and winter of 2002, the world and its dog believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq still possessed WMD, was running WMD research and development programmes and was working on development of missile delivery systems. Clear proof of that is the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously (even Syria voted for it). We now know from a source close to Saddam Hussein that Saddam Hussein deliberately fostered belief in the Iraqi possession of WMD amongst his neighbours. The information on what Saddam Hussein's WMD capability and potential were came direct from the UN - that was the "bad intelligence", but given a situation in which there is a certain compunction to act, you have to go with whatever "intelligence" that you have got, be it good or bad. The compunction to act from the perspective of the USA was that sanctions against Saddam's Iraq were about to be lifted and the whistle had just been blown on Irans nuclear programme.

Point 4 - During the Presidency of Jimmy Carter undue emphasis was placed on technological gathering of intelligence at almost the complete elimination of human intelligence sources. This came about as a result of the Iran Hostage crisis and meant that in much of the middle-east US intelligence operated blind and massive intelligence "black-holes" were created.

Point 5 - When the US applied pressure on the UN and on Iraq to resolve all outstanding issues with regard to UNSC Resolutions 687 and 1441, Saddam Hussein had a choice to make. In fact he had three options:
- Come clean and stay in power;
- Defy the UN openly;
- Attempt to play for time with the assistance of his trading partners France, Russia and China.

He rather unwisely chose the latter. Even when it was obvious in mid-March that the US was going to act, Saddam Hussein was given a chance to leave Iraq, again he made the wrong choice and ultimately paid for it with his life (Not that he would have survived long outside Iraq's borders, but that is mere speculation on my part). The responsibility for the war in Iraq rests entirely with Saddam Hussein, who could have easily have prevented it on at least two distinct occasions.

Point 6 - The vast majority of casualties and deaths in Iraq have been perpetrated at the hands of Iraqi insurgents, sectarian militias, Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq & other foreign jihadists, criminal gangs. Their decision to fight was theirs and theirs alone. The ruthlessness of sacrificing any heavily populated areas was deliberate and unconscionable, but that was done by the insurgents, the sectarian militias and Al-qaeda-in-Iraq. It was done Amos, to try and ignite a "Civil War", fortunately they failed and failed miserably. The population of the country in general has turned against them. The remaining insurgets and Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq are in General Giap's terms "fish out of water".

Point 7 - The thing I find despicable Amos are those here who openly state that they would rather have seen Saddam remain in power. At least at the moment there is the prospect of improved security and prosperity for the people of Iraq, they have a chance of enjoying a bright future which certainly never existed under Saddam's rule.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 10:33 AM

The only problem with your dreamy interpretation of events, T, is that this wonderful intell machine started a war on bad intelligence; and the thousands killed or captured are closer to hundreds of thousands, many of whom were civilians with no political or military interest aside from surviving the week. Iraq's sandbox is not an ideal ground for drawing the Qeda into a battle not of their own choosing even though that has merit; the ruthlessness of sacrificing a heavily populated area to the clever tactics (if in fact they were even conscious tactics which is debatable) of Bush's war planners is unconscionable. It remains to be seen whether the Taliban in Afghanistan is as finished as you imply. The Iraq army and the Iraq people, both put up as emenmies, had no part in the attacks you mention. YEt you seem tot hink the idea of draggin the whole Iraq nation into the battle against Al Qeda as a sort of shield is highly laudable. I do not concur; I find it despicable and small-minded in the extreme.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 07 - 08:01 AM

From Folkiedave we got the following:
Comment 1.
Complete revamp of US Intelligence Services and Security Agencies.

"Not just a little tinkering here and there then? Were they no good before?"

Frankly, no they were not. The fault for that lay with decisions taken during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter in relation to intelligence gathering, and little or no reorganization to reflect change in situation since the end of the "Cold War". The investigation into the attacks of 911 came to the same conclusion

Point 2.
"mproved lines of communication to ensure overview of intelligence data."

"Goodness knows what happened before that!!"

Well you for certain don't appear to have a clue, but as the findings of the 911 Commission stated that for all the agencies operating in the US there was no one body specifically looking at the overall picture. Due to the changes introduced by the current administration the chances of information falling through the cracks is greatly reduced.

Point 3.
Drawing the line in the sand - "You are either with us or against us" Which concentrated the minds of some waiverers and increased the amount of information and degree of co-operation with US Intelligence Services from around the world.

"And the net result of that has been.......?"

Sorry Folkiedave I thought I'd put that up earlier:

Successful attacks against the US under Clinton = 4
Retaliation against said attackers under Clinton was minimal, haphazard, ineffective and poorly directed.
Successful attacks against the US under Bush = 1
Retaliation against said attackers under Bush massive, focused and extremely effective resulting in thousands killed or captured. Al-Qaeda forced to fight in battles not of its own choosing, on ground not of its own choosing.

Point 4.
IMO ISPS Code

"MJOF (Meaningless Jargon Old Fruit)"

Well Folkiedave when you consider that there was nothing in place before it was introduced, I would hardly describe it as meaningless. You obviously do not work with anything touched by it, or have any understanding of how it does work.

Point 5.
Department of Homeland Security

"I was in the USA this time last year for Xmas. Had a great time. At Washington Dulles Airport as I left there were so many bags left unattended anyone could have blown the place up. I hope things have improved."

Surely a matter for Airport Security Staff Folkiedave

Point 6.
Intelligence gathering powers

"Whereas before this there was..............."

Nothing.

Point 6.
Taking the fight to the "enemy" whenever and wherever that enemy can be found. Al-Qaeda is having a tough enough time struggling to survive at the moment, it doesn't have time to plot or the facilities to train.

"I am not sure why enemy is inverted commas. You don't actually know what sort of time Al Queda is having because you don't actually know who it/they are, and you don't actually know where it/they are. Otherwise you would have got rid of them by now - wouldn't you?

And frankly neither does the intelligence services of the nations that are looking for them and the army that is fighting them."

Well for starters Folkiedave I know enough about them to spell their name correctly. Perhaps you can regale us of all the successes Al-Qaeda has had since they were turfed out of their cosy little enclaves in Afghanistan in 2001. Any idea how many have been killed or captured over the last six years Folkiedave? (Over 4000 in Iraq alone in 2006).

Point 7.
Forced the leadership of Al-Qaeda to very publicly declare war on their own kind (Tends not to go down well in the "muslim world" when muslim is ordered to kill muslim

"Oh! good! It'll soon all be over then!"

It is for Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, not even their former hosts the Taleban will have much to do with them now. In Iraq their former allies have turned on them and the security situation continues to improve by the day.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:29 PM

Sorry, McG... I missed yer post...

Well said... Rambo usally won, or at least "showed"...

These guys are losers...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:09 PM

Well, "all the wealth" is somewhat poetic licence there, Homey... Of course the upper 1% doesn't hold "all the wealth"... Just well over 90% of it...

But that isn't the issue here becuase it can be argues that if 1% of the people in Haiti *hold* 90% of the wealth then is is reasonable to say that they *control* all of the wealth...

Splittin' hairs here, pal...

Lets just put it this way... Would you like to move to Haiti and *not* be part of the upper 1%???

I didn't think so...

Game over...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:03 PM

I think describing the Bush-Cheney approach as "Rambo diplomacy" is being a bit flattering.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 06:47 PM

Bobert fact:

"Haiti with 1% holding all the wealth"

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=102499&messages=184&page=1#2078338

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 10:52 AM

Yeah, kina, bb... 'cept in my case you don't have a nuke...

As for you assertions that I don't have facts what we have seen over the years here is that my facts have tended to bear out in the long run... Facts have become increaingly nebulous under an administration that manipulates the story to fit their agenda... Lots of stuff that comes out of this administartion, and the blags that support it, are not facts at all but stories that have been created around the tiniest little bit of information... In other words, you cannot claim that your blogs that you post in long cut 'n pastes represent the truth becuase you really don't know that to be a fact... Waht you do know is that these blogs support your certain biases... Nothtin' more...

That is why I, and others here, resent you thinking you have the market cornered on the "truth"...

History has not shown that you do...

And, for the record, I am glad that you are now employed but whether or not you are or aren't doesn't ***prove*** that evrything that you cut 'n post would hold up under close scrutiny...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:38 AM

So some here believe Iran poses a nuclear threat.

What should be done about it?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 08:32 AM

"To which he replied 'yes'"

At which point he pissed away all the good work he had done or might have had yet to do.

Of course, dealing with absolutes is how Bush et al see the world, and why in the end they don't have the wit or intelligence, supplied or inherent, to contribute to the greater good of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:55 AM

Our Prime Minister was reputedly asked back in 2001 by Bush if he was 'with us or against us?'

To which he replied 'yes'

;-))

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:22 AM

"All I have done is requested, on mnay occasions, that you quit it and when it didn't stop, I told you what I was prepared to do to get you to stop it..."

Sort of like requesting that Iran stop the prohibited enrichment of uranium and then telling them what the US is prepared to do to get them to stop it...

But you seem to object when Bush does this.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 12:17 AM

"If you feel that you calling be a "liar" also grants you permission to "sucker punch" me then, hey, have at it... Better be one heck of shot, though...
"

Actually, I was pointing out ( perhaps too subtly) that it did NOT.


I have requested that when you make statemments, you at least try to justify them with facts. When the opinions you present as fact are shown to be incorrect, I would hope that you might at least stop insisting on repeating them without any justification, after being informed as to their lack of validity to the real world.

If that is too much to ask, let me know.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:30 PM

Well, yeah, bb...

...'cept the difference is that in our situation, unlike the one that Don has pointed out, you are the US and I am Iran... You are the one who has a perchant of calling me a "liar" which is agressive...

All I have done is requested, on mnay occasions, that you quit it and when it didn't stop, I told you what I was prepared to do to get you to stop it...

You may not like the way I debate issues but if I've ever called you a "liar" it would have been after being called a "liar" by you... Might of fact, since our last little tussel over you calling me a "liar" I have made every effort to not personalize my positions against anyone... Okay, I might call folks Bushites but that is fair game since anyone who didn't particularlly light the Newg Gingrich's in the 90's were called Clintonites... I don't consider that personalizing...

But, whatever???

If you feel that you calling be a "liar" also grants you permission to "sucker punch" me then, hey, have at it... Better be one heck of shot, though...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:58 PM

So THAT's how I should treat Bobert's threats!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 08:02 PM

Diplomacy for a change.

Making demands and trying to order other countries around is only going to get their backs up and make them feel they need to be able to defend themselves. That's pretty damned basic. But the only type of "diplomacy" the Bush / Cheney axis seems to conceive of is Rambo diplomacy.

Just on an interpersonal level, if some bruiser looms over me and threatens to pound me into the ground if I don't kowtow to him, I'm gonna look for my opportunity and then sucker-punch the son of a bitch.

Like I say, that's basic.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 07:54 PM

Folks, I gotta say it.








NO NUKES IS GOOD NUKES

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM

Iran poses far less of a potential threat than Pakistan does.

As for the potential threat posed by the USA...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: bobad
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:56 AM

"This capacity is far larger than needed for a nuclear weapon program, supporting Iran's statement that the facility is aimed at producing low enriched uranium for nuclear power reactors. Nonetheless, such a facility could use a relatively small fraction of its capacity, say 10,000 SWU per year, to make enough highly enriched uranium for three nuclear weapons a year, while using the remaining capacity to produce low enriched uranium. In addition, if a country can make an enrichment plant of this size, it can make enough machines to outfit another secret enrichment plant with a capacity of 10,000 SWU per year involving several thousand machines. IAEA safeguards could detect such clandestine activities, but the IAEA must have far more extensive inspection rights than Iran has been willing to provide the IAEA so far."

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/natanz03_02.html

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:27 AM

Okay, I believe it, Homey...

But, like Amos, I'd like to see a major shift in our foriegn policy that deals more with the protection of people and less the destruction of people...

When Bush rattles his sabre it does what it is intended to do and that is to scare other countries... This is not helpful if we expect other countries to not try to find ways to protect themselves from attacks... I have said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again... If I am the leader of a threatened country I'd be looking for ways to defend my country... Regardless of the rhetoric about Isreal, Iran is more concerned about the US nukin' them...

What Bush has done is a combination of two old school foriegn policy failures... Vietnam (hot war) and the Cold War (threats)... Both of these policies are terribly flawed given the state of the planet today... And both of these failed policies share the same cornerstone and that is "militarism"... Militarism is outdated and not usefull... I won't solve problems... I won't protect people... It just makes the planet even more dangerous...

No, we need a drastic change in strategy if the goal is to protect people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:19 AM

I said believe it, not say it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:06 AM

At this time, four.

But they do have a large cascade of enrichment centrifuges churning away. They represent a nuclear something and I wish there was more openness about what that is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:40 AM

I'll say it three...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 06:51 AM

I'll say it too.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 12:25 AM

I'll say it then. Iran poses no nuclear threat.

Gotta have a nuke weapon program before they can be a threat. Even an idiot like Bush admits they don't so what's your excuse?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 11:47 PM

After reading through this pissing match about who said what when, I would like to know if anybody here can say they believe Iran dies not pose a nuclear threat to the middle east and a nuclear threat to peace in the world?

I believe they do.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 02:06 PM

Bush's response to displace the Taleban in Afghanistan and put Al-Qaeda very much on the back foot.

I just typed "Al Qaeda stronger than ever" into Google, just to see. Came up with 93,000 links.

Here's one more or less taken at random, a BBC report earlier this year: US concern at al-Qaeda strength

As the old saying goes - "The operation was a total success, but the patient died."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Peace
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 01:51 PM

"Intelligence" is the art and craft of gathering seemingly disassociated pieces of info and rearranging the picture until what's left is what was, is or will be. The various 'services' HAVE been politicized to the extent they think within given parameters. That is a very bad mistake. It allows one's enemies to pick and choose where what will happen. Adept fighters know that being defensive really means that sooner or later something gets through and ya lose. I would never, repeat never, allow an enemy of mine to decide terms and conditions of any fight. Just the way it is.