BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 01:55 PM

Teribus, are you not aware that I recently indicated a few posts back that I wasn't going to talk further about Israel on this thread? I am doing that partly to spare the feelings of certain friends of mine here who don't see Israel in the same light as I do.

If you want to discuss Israel further with me, PM me.

I'm waiting...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

As I thought LH, you spout complete and utter shite on the forum and when faced with a question, all of a sudden it becomes too sensitive for public discussion.

You are exceedingly good at knocking things (primarily the US and Israel), you have no original ideas, you can offer no solutions. While you can see your way to justifying the murderous actions of terrorists, you have got no idea as to how those faced with a terrorist threat that demands their complete and utter annihilation can even attempt to open any form of negotiation.

By the bye LH look at what Osama has said (prior to 911) you will find that the US is in the same frame. Get real, wake up, smell the coffee - There is no negotiation with these people, you are in a war, you have been since the early 1990's, long before GWB became President of the United States of America. Your enemies demand your unconditional surrender, conversion to Islam and adoption of Sharia Law. All GWB did was to take the battle to them, and ever since they have been suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM

Guys: LH has said that he'd keep his posts here to the Iran/Korea thing. He will, because that's the kind of man he is. He and I disagree vehemently on Israel/Arab conflict, but despite that, he's not a 'friend' I've lost over the issue. IMO, it would be good to let it pass. I hope you can see clear to agree with that, Teribus. Becaiuse despite that I agree with YOU on this, it just isn't worth the heartache to watch two people I really like go at each other on a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM

Well, I don't know why LH feels that he can't answer yer questions, Terrible, but he is a man of honesty an' if he can't discuss this he can't... He has offered you an avenue for the two of you to hash it out privately... No grandstanding... Jus' an avenue...

If you have made the choice not to engage LH on this subject thru PM's then I can opnly think that you care more about grandstanding...
What am I missing here???

As for my own opinion which of course you won't read because you think my arguments are weak and bigoted is that, as per usual, there is a lot of postruing in the Middle East... But, hey, it is the Middle Esat and folks in the Middle East love posturing and bluffing and all that kind of stuff...

Ask me how I know...

Well, I've had business dealings with Saudis, Kuwaitis and Palestinians an' for folks who haven't: lucky yous... These folsk is so full of it that this explains why all of 'um have brown eyes... It backs up that far...

So, when I hear anyone from that region sayin' anything I think to myself, "Liar", which, of course, is a well honored behavior in the Middle East... Lieing, that is... The kids are taught very early how to out lie their school mates and their brothers...

Okay, maybe Terrible is right... Maybe I am a bigot 'cause of these observations???

(Ouch, I've hurt my head and now must lie down an' take a nap...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 10:40 AM

Hi Bobert - I've had lots of dealings with people from middle east as well....all corners of it. I'm not sure what kind of dealings you had, obviously, but to call them all liars on the basis of the ones you've met seems a bit too much. Liars can be found everywhere. I'm sure you'l agree there's good and bad to be everywhere!

Peace - you only 'lose' the 'friends' you want to - just because you disgaree with someone doesn't mean that also have to start hating them - that would imply you only like and are friends with people who agree with you. As for having a go at people - may I remind you that you started having a go at me simply because I didn't agree with you and asked you a few of the same kind of quetsions that you ask too. Was there any other reason? I didn't see your PM until after you said I was 'impolite' etc., That ever occur to you?

Teribus - I'm willing to try answering your questions and asking a few of my own as well, cos this is an area that has started to fascinate me of late.
But in deference to the thread this is, I'll start a new one so we can discuss the topic openly.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:22 PM

VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- Iran's persistent failure to clear up concerns about its nuclear activities after concealing them for almost 20 years sets it apart from all other nations, the U.N. atomic watchdog chief said on Monday.

Six world powers are now negotiating on widening sanctions against Iran for pressing ahead with its program to enrich uranium, a possible route to building atomic bombs, and ignoring a February 21 U.N. Security Council deadline for it to stop.

"Iran's verification case is sui generis (one of a kind)," Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in opening remarks to a gathering of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors.

"Unlike other verification cases, the IAEA's confidence about the nature of Iran's program has been shaken because of two decades of undeclared activities (until 2003)," he said.

"This confidence will only be restored when Iran takes the long overdue decision to explain and answer all the agency's questions and concerns about its past nuclear activities in an open and transparent manner."

Iran rejects Western suspicions that it is trying to master nuclear bomb technology under the cover of a civilian atomic energy program, saying it only wants to generate electricity.

Tehran has also complained of unfair treatment, noting the IAEA has found no hard evidence of covert bomb making efforts. It has characterized sanctions as a U.S.-led campaign to stunt its economic development and topple its government.

"We have not seen concrete proof of diversion of nuclear material, nor the industrial capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material, which is an important consideration in assessing the risk," said ElBaradei.

"But quite a few uncertainties remain about experiments, procurements and other activities ..." Iran's IAEA envoy, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said it would never cede "its inalienable right" to enrichment but was prepared to resolve outstanding issues "if our nuclear dossier is returned (by the Security Council) to the IAEA where it belongs."

Cuts in nuclear aid
At the meeting likely to run some four days, governors were expected to approve cuts to 22 of 55 IAEA technical aid projects in Iran. This would uphold a December U.N. ban on giving Iran technology and know-how of use in making atomic fuel.

A February 22 IAEA report said Iran was installing cascades, or networks, of 164 centrifuges each in its underground uranium enrichment plant in a bid to graduate from research-level refinement of nuclear fuel to a basis for "industrial-scale" production, with some 3,000 centrifuges due to be set up by May.

But ElBaradei said Iran apparently had not begun pumping uranium gas into cascades in the vast Natanz bunker complex, as it said it would start doing by the end of February.

"While there is concern about Iran's future intentions, the situation today is still very much R&D (research and development) activities," he told reporters.

ElBaradei praised an apparent nuclear climb-down by North Korea, whose own confrontation with the world eased when it agreed on February 13 to dismantle its nuclear arms program and readmit IAEA inspectors expelled four years ago.

"I welcome the Beijing agreement, and the invitation to visit North Korea, as positive steps toward the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and towards the normalization of North Korea's relationship with the agency," he told the board.

ElBaradei goes to Pyongyang on March 13 to work out details of the nuclear shutdown and redeploying inspectors by mid-April to ensure the secretive Stalinist state upholds the pact.

"This process has to be completed within 60 days so we have a short time span (to achieve it) ...," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 10:13 PM

Nickhere--for the last time, I have NOTHING more to say to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

Suit yourself. But you have said you will reply to my posts about Israel /palestine - which is effectively the same as talking to me; except it will be as in "Tell your father to pass the salt" "Tell your mother she can get it herself" which will look ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:08 PM

Propoganda regarding Syria's threat to use bio weapons (possibly small pox) in the event that Iran is invaded by the US is currently making the rounds by people like Matt Drudge.

Be it Rovian, Cheneyesque or Rumsfeldian fear propoganda or simply true, it may reach the shores of mainstream media next month.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:37 PM

Marvelous. Isn't it hilarious that the most powerful and heavily armed country in the world, the biggest aggressor nation, the one that attacks other people whenever they have something it wants and they won't cooperate, tells its own public that IT is the one being threatened? How outrageous. You know who their next target of choice is, when they say "those people are a threat".

Its the most blatant case of a wolf calling its next prey a wolf that I have seen in modern times.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:00 PM

Iran threatens 'illegal' nuke work
POSTED: 11:54 a.m. EDT, March 21, 2007

Story Highlights• Khamenei warns Iran will pursue nuclear activities outside international law
• Leader also warns Iran will retaliate if attacked
• Iran accused of using atomic program as a cover to build nuclear weapons

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Wednesday that the country will pursue nuclear activities outside international regulations if the U.N. Security Council insists it stop uranium enrichment.

"Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations," Khamenei said. "But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so."

Khamenei did not elaborate what "illegal actions" could be pursued by Tehran as it faces new sanctions by the U.N. body over its refusal to halt enrichment which the West fears is used for arms making.

Iran's top leader also issued a stark warning to the United States, saying Iran will "use all its capacities to strike" its enemies if his country is attacked.

"If they want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack," Khamenei told the nation in an address marking the first day of Nowruz, or the Persian New Year.

The top five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have drawn up new sanctions meant to punish Iran for rejecting U.N. demands it halt the controversial enrichment -- a key process that can produce fuel for a reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead.

Khamenei said sanctions against Iran had not worked in the past and more could instead have the opposite effect on a nation that wants to benefit from nuclear power because "one day oil will dry up."

"We achieved nuclear (technology) amid sanctions. Sanctions may even, under circumstances, come to our benefit since they create more motivation for us," he added.

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of using its nuclear program as a cover to build nuclear weapons. Tehran has denies the charges, saying its nuclear program is merely geared toward generating electricity, not bomb.

Iranian is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- the agreement under which the U.N. inspections are held.

"The Iranian nation needs nuclear energy for life, not weapons," Khamenei said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:04 PM

"The Iranian nation needs nuclear energy for life, not weapons," Khamenei said.

Makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM

Ah, well that's alright then Dianavan. By the bye is there any particular reason that they wanted to keep this desire for life secret?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:52 PM

'Iran's representative asserted that its peaceful nuclear programme posed no threat to international peace and security, and, therefore, dealing with the issue in the Security Council was unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility. Far from reflecting the international community's concerns, the sponsors' approach flouted the stated position of the overwhelming majority of Member States. Today's action by the Council, which was the culmination of efforts aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory, violated international law, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA resolutions. It also ran counter to the views of the majority of United Nations Member States, which the Council was obliged to represent. The sole reason for pushing the Council to take action was that Iran had decided, after over two years of negotiations, to resume the exercise of its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, by partially reopening its fully safeguarded facilities and ending a voluntary suspension.



Iran's right to enrich uranium was recognized under the NPT, he said. And, upholding the right of State parties to international regimes was as essential as ensuring respect for their obligations. Those regimes, including the NPT, were sustained by a balance between rights and obligations. Threats would not sustain the NPT or other international regimes, but ensuring that members could draw rightful benefits from membership, and that non-members were not rewarded for their intransigence, did. Yet, today, the world was witnessing a dangerous trend. While members of the NPT were denied their rights and punished, those who defied the NPT, particularly the perpetrators of the current carnage in Lebanon and Palestine, were rewarded by generous nuclear cooperation agreements. "This is one awkward way to safeguard the NPT or ensure its universality", he said.'

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:20 PM

At least Switzerland is willing to negotiate.

"The proposal was that Iran would be permitted to keep its current uranium enrichment infrastructure of several hundred centrifuges. Iran could run the centrifuges but would not feed any processed uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into them while negotiating a package of incentives with six world powers."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21525348.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:28 PM

Iran is doing exactly what any other sovereign nation would do if conducting a domestic nuclear power program to generate electricity and being told that they cannot enrich unranium because they might use it to build nuclear weapons. Building nuclear weapons is NOT the only reason for enriching uranium.

Iran is being asked to prove that it doesn't have nukes and doesn't intend to build any. You cannot prove a negative.

In the same way, Saddam was asked to prove he didn't have WMDs. He could not prove a negative either. He was like a fish in a barrel...nothing he could do would have stopped the US attack in 2003.

The USA normally does this when they want an excuse to attack someone...they ask their next target to prove a negative...which can't be done. It's the perfect catch-22. The target can struggle all they want, but they can't prove that they don't have something which the USA says they do, and they can't prove that they don't have intentions which the USA says they do.

"• Leader also warns Iran will retaliate if attacked"

Gosh! How awful of them!!! ;-) Look, who the hell does NOT retaliate if attacked? Who does not warn he will retaliate if attacked?

Iran has something the USA wants, but is not cooperating with American corporate planning, and non-cooperation is simply not accepted by the Superpower any more than it is by a local Mafia boss. Therefore Iran is now a target, and has been ever since 1979. The present propaganda campaign by America and Israel is geared to make people think that Iran is so dangerous, so scary, that they must be attacked without delay (same tired old propaganda technique that was used to attack Iraq in 2003). Therefore, they are asked to prove a negative....that they DON'T have nukes or plans to build nukes. You cannot prove a negative. If you don't have such things or any plans for them...and if you say so...the USA can just accuse you of lying, after all. And that's what happens. It is justification of war not on the basis of any actual provocation, but on the basis of innuendo.

It becomes more and more likely under such outside pressure that Iran will eventually decide it must acquire nuclear weapons simply as a matter of self-defence. If so, the USA accusation will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, the ayatollahs have always opposed the idea of developing nuclear weapons, considering such weapons to be "un-Islamic".

I wouldn't want to bet either way on how this one will turn out...

Is it possible that Iran wants to build nukes and is enriching uranium for that purpose? Yes. Is it proven? No. Is the burden of proof on the accusers? Yes. Even if it were proven, would that then be justification for a pre-emptive attack on Iran? Hell, no! No one has the right to pre-emptively attack another country just because that country has or is building some kind of weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:24 PM

See you ducked the question dianavan - thought that you would.

More crap from Little Hawk, except in his latest tirade he has managed some absolute howlers. My favourite is this one:

"Leader also warns Iran will retaliate if attacked"

Gosh! How awful of them!!! ;-) Look, who the hell does NOT retaliate if attacked? Who does not warn he will retaliate if attacked?"

Judging by your earlier posts Little Hawk, Israel is not allowed to retaliate if attacked, but, according to you, that is an option open to others (i.e. the ones you approve of).

Read last November's IAEA Report on Iran's nuclear programme LH - you should.

A few things that tend to get in yours and dianavan's claims for Iranian credibility:

- If you are a signatory of the Nuclear NPT you are not allowed to pursue the development and aquisition of nuclear weapons.

"Even if it were proven, would that then be justification for a pre-emptive attack on Iran? Hell, no!" - Little Hawk.

Hell Yes, if someone had done something about Hitlers secret weapons development, construction and training programmes in 1935 WWII would not have happened.

- Why were the enrichment facilities built in secret?

- Why are the Iranians buying the type of centrifuges that enrich uranium way beyond the level required for fuel.

- Why are the Iranians buying those types of centrifuges in sufficient numbers to greatly accelerate enrichment.

- Why are the Iranians modifying and developing IRBM's capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Absolutely dianavan, totally peaceful, nothing to worry about at all. You have got to be joking!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM

"- If you are a signatory of the Nuclear NPT you are not allowed to pursue the development and aquisition of nuclear weapons."

Correct. However, no one has proven that Iran IS pursuing the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, and Iran, unlike North Korea, has stated over and over again that they are not doing so. So, what if the USA is lying when they say that they believe Iran is pursuing the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons? Or what if the USA is mistaken when they say that?

All people ARE allowed to retaliate to attack, Teribus, but in a reasonably proportionate manner. Israel's invasions of Lebanon were both totally out of proportion to anything that paramilitary forces in Lebanon had done to Israel. It would have been a proportionate response on Israel's part to counterfire rocket launchings with return fire from artillery and to make surgical airstrikes on the rocket launching positions. It was completely disproportionate, however, to launch a fullscale invasion of southern Lebanon.

I do not hold a particularly high estimation of Iranian credibility, Teribus, but neither do I hold a high estimation of American or Israeli credibility. They all are capable of lying and misleading in order to achieve desired objectives. I don't feel that any of them have a right to launch pre-emptive attacks on any other country, nor to answer a minor provocation with a fullscale war. If they do so, they're doing it not for legitimate defence, but for their own gain.

I think it's entirely possible that Iran is secretly building or preparing to build nukes. It wouldn't surprise me. If they were, however, I would not regard it as a legitimate reason for attacking them. No one has the moral or legal right to attack first. You must realize, Teribus, that were the USA or Israel in Iran's position vis-a-vis more powerful enemies already armed with a great many nuclear weapons and they with no nukes of their own, they would most certainly move heaven and earth to build nukes, they would do it secretly and illegally if they had to, and they would do it without delay.

The fact is, the Israelis already did that. A long time ago. The problem with America and Israel in regards to the rest of the world is this: they always seem to think that it's okay for them to do things that no one else (except maybe the UK) is allowed to do. Well, they must be very, very special people, eh? You have to be extra-special to be granted legal and moral exemptions that no one else gets.

Is it any surprise that the rest of the world doesn't buy it, and sees a double standard in effect?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM

The Isle of Capri.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM

"Hell Yes, if someone had done something about Hitler's secret weapons development, construction and training programmes in 1935 WWII would not have happened"

Or if the Manhattan project had been stopped over quarter of a million Japanese civilians might have lived out their full lives......the Cold War might not have happened.....Stalin might have overrun Europe.....all kinds of things are possible with speculative history.

Trouble is, change one detail and you change the whole of history completely. If you are a fan of science fiction you will be familiar with this concept. Actually it's impossible to say for sure what would have happened instead, history is simply not reducible to simple cause-and-effect.

Launch an attack on Iran and occupy it like you've done Iraq, and you might instead succed in widening an Islamic-led war against the west, and perhaps succeed in pissing off the Chinese (customers of Iran) and Russians so much that you precipitate the slide into WW3.

And as the saying goes, WW3 may be fought with robots and nukes, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:58 PM

The more sensible approach to stopping Hitler would have been to confront him with much harder-nosed and more determined political responses from Britain and France in the mid-to-late 30s. For instance, had the British and French stood by Czechoslovakia the way they did later by Poland, and had the Czechs been resolved to fight in '38 rather than cede one square mile of land to the Reich...one of the following 2 things would have happened.

1. Hitler would have backed down. Or more likely...

2. He would not have backed down, and the Wehrmacht would have immediately staged a coup and arrested Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, Himmler and the whole rotten lot of Nazi chiefs and that would have put an end to it right there. The German Army generals had already decided among themselves that if the Czechs were resolved to fight then they would take matters into their own hands, disobey the invasion orders, and arrest Hitler. Their reason? They knew that the German army was simply not ready yet for war in 1938, and that it would lead to a national disaster.

The Czech crisis was really the last chance to stop Hitler's war. The British and French failed to act with resolve and they abandoned the Czechs. Then the Czechs also lost resolve and caved in. That set the stage for all the rest that followed. Hitler was so emboldened by his success in annexing Czechoslovakia and "beating the odds" that he felt unstoppable after that, and the traditional general staff of the German Army had lost its last great psychological opportunity to depose the irresponsible little corporal and nip the Nazi experiment in the bud.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:31 AM

Which is what the US should do with Bush, Rummey, Rice, the Wolf, Cheney & others! Arrest them before the start of WWIII. I've stated that the US will invade Iran & Syria in the near future back when we were invading Iraq & I still have no doubt as to it's intention. Iran would do well if it has a weapon that will deter this from happening, I would in their position. I also believe that if Israel allowed inspectors within it's borders to find suspected nuclear weapons that Iran would be more willing to do the same, at least it's a worthwile point. But even to push aside the treat of the possibly of a WWIII Israel wound not, IMO allow weapons inspectors within their borders. If Israel won't why should Iran? They are more suspect than Iran is of having Nukes, Iran is only suspect in trying to develop them.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:45 AM

Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Neither! Bush will be sending troops to Chicago. It's been held by Democrats for far too long. It's time for a regime change.

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM

LH,

You ignore the fact that Iran signed the NPT, and took advantage of the assistance it offers to build its nuclear program in the first place.

Israel DID NOT sign the NPT.

If your belief is that nations have no resposibility to honor their treaty commitments, and should not be held accountable for them, please say so.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 11:26 AM

I'm not impressed much by misleading legalese, BB, which is what these arguments often swirl around. I'm impressed by realities. Israel really has nuclear weapons, but won't admit to it officially. The obvious reason that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT is that it was was specifically arranged that way by Israel and the USA so that Israel can maintain silence about the reality of the situation. That was legal chicanery, intended to exempt Israel from what others are not exempted from. Israel should be held to the same international standard as other countries, which is to say, Israel should be required to reveal its WMDs if other people are required to. No double standard.

What could they possibly lose BY revealing what everyone already knows anyway???? Would their pride be hurt? I don't think anyone is going to try and take their nukes away... LOL!

Furthermore, no country should be expected to prove a negative proposition, meaning Iraq should not have been required in 2003 to prove it did NOT have WMDs (which is impossible to prove), nor should Iran. The burden of proof is upon those who say something does exist. They have to prove it does. If they can't prove it, they have no case, because then it's all just innuendo, and you cannot convict someone in a court of law based upon innuendo. You need proof of guilt, not just rumors of guilt spread by the prosecution.

Barry Finn is exactly right in his points regarding Israel and Iran. No double standard. If Iran must submit to international inspection of all its secret facilities, then so must Israel. That would be fair. That would be equitable. If Iran is to be attacked for not submitting to international inspection, then so must Israel be attacked for not submitting to the same. No double standard.

Heh! But I should live so long as to see that happen... ;-) I am well aware that I live in a society and in a world which does not treat all people in an equal fashion...despite its pretensions of democracy and moral rectitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:19 PM

Little Hawk, Dianavan, the questions that you have failed to address:

- Why were Iran's uranium enrichment facilities built in secret? The IAEA only got to know about them because a group of dissident Iranians led them to the sites.

- Why are the Iranians buying the type of centrifuges that enrich uranium way beyond the level required for fuel? Enrichment for fuel I believe is about 19% enriched, for weapons grade material I think it is about 96%, the Iranians have gone for P2 centifuges that cascaded will produce the latter.

- Why are the Iranians buying those types (P2's) of centrifuges in sufficient numbers to greatly accelerate enrichment? To configure the cascades required to produce weapons grade material would seem a highly likely scenario, all this kit is not required for doing what they claim.

- Why are the Iranians modifying and developing IRBM's (Range 3000 km) capable of carrying nuclear warheads?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:29 PM

bb - Are you saying that Iran does not have the right to defend itself?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM

"dianavan - PM
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:29 PM

bb - Are you saying that Iran does not have the right to defend itself? "

No. If they are attacked, they have the right to defend themselves- as does every other country, including Israel and the US.

They DO NOT, BECAUSE of their signing the NPT, have the right to develop nuclear weapons, nor to conceal their nuclear activities that are covered by that treaty.

Israel, who DID NOT sign that treaty, nor recieved the aid provided by it, does NOT have the same requirements- along with all the other nations who did not sign the NPT. ALL those who DID sign it are subject to the restrictions that it imposes: Those who did not are NOT.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

"Israel should be held to the same international standard as other countries, which is to say, Israel should be required to reveal its WMDs if other people are required to. No double standard."


Which is in fact the case: Like all other nations* who did NOT sign the NPT, and benefit from it, Israel has no requirement to disclose information about their nuclear programs.

* India, Pakistan, US, Russia, France, Great Britain come to mind...

Not sure about Canada- have to check.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:41 PM

Without having read right thru the whole shebang,Iran hasn't hit anyone's skull,so can we spend some time seeing what the West's resposibility is for all this Iran/Korea stuff?

   i think we've got time.

   and it may lead to a quite diofferent route to a solution.

   byeeeeeeee.






      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:46 PM

"The Treaty, which his country signed in 1968, was a treaty of commitment and not convenience, he said. The NPT was the world's most successful and most widely adhered to multilateral arms control treaty, with 187 State parties. The collective decision of 174 States, who were party to the Treaty in 1995, to extend it indefinitely, enshrined its values and enhanced its authority and integrity. Without nuclear disarmament, there would be nuclear proliferation. The permanence achieved five years ago was not a permit to retain nuclear weapons forever. In fact, that permanence made the obligation on all States parties to get rid of nuclear weapons and to stay rid of them unending.
.....
He said that Canada would continue to resist any movement to legitimize, de facto or de jure, any new nuclear-weapon State. He urged all States that had not yet done so to join the NPT and the CTBT without further delay and without conditions. He also urged all participants in the Conference on Disarmament to
show flexibility and to agree on a work programme and to commence negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. "



http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/news/20000502-canada2pc.htm

OK, Canada HAS signed the treaty, so they fall under NPT requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:52 PM

Sorry.
US, Russia, France, Great Britain did sign the treaty, but as nuclear powers- ie, they agreed NOT to provide prohibited material to other signatories. Like enrichment centrifuges to Iran...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:21 PM

Well, Teribus, as I have said before, the Iranians may be intent on building nuclear weapons...or they may not be. I don't know. I would not be surprised if they were. I would not be surprised if they weren't. Either possibility exists, neither is proven. I don't think the fact that a country has built secret installations or may be building nuclear weapons is ever justification for another country launching a pre-emptive attack on the first country.

Attacks on other countries are legal and justifiable only when one has already been attacked BY the armed forces of that country, in my opinion, and then in a reasonably proportionate manner.

I think the Americans would like to believe that it's okay for them to do what it's never okay for others to do...attack first. It's not okay. God is not an American. (joke) Neither is "God" an Israeli or an Iranian. No one has the right to launch a pre-emptive attack by its armed forces on another nation.

All countries that have nuclear weapons have them for these reasons...

1. They don't want to be at a military disadvantage in regards to any potential enemy, they want parity (or superiority if they can get it) when it comes to weapons.

2. They want to deter a nuclear or a conventional attack by being able to strike back in a similar manner.

But...they are all keenly aware that if they should launch a first strike, then they CAN be hit back in a similar fashion! And that restrains them from doing so, providing the other guy is similiarly armed. That is why India and Pakistan, for example, have been restrained from going beyond a certain point of open warfare since they both acquired nuclear strike capability.

Israel wanted nuclear weapons in order to have the ultimate deterrence against a foreign attack on Israel by the nations around it. That's perfectly understandable. I'd have done the same thing if I were them.

If Iran had nuclear weapons, then they would have a similar deterrent to attack from outside, wouldn't they? Saddam would not have dared to invade them, for instance, would he? The game would be evened out some. The USA and Israel do not want an even game, however, they want a game where they can smash the other guy and NOT get smashed back in a similar fashion.

The Iranians regard that as unfair. I believe that anyone else in their place would feel the same about that. ;-) You follow?

I think it is highly unlikely that Iran would fire nukes first, thus guaranteeing a massive retaliation from the USA and Israel. There is nothing in their past history to suggest such a totally self-defeating insanity on their part.

To say that the Iranians are that insane, which is really the implicit message underneath all the rhetoric from Israel and the USA strikes me as...

1. bigotry
2. innate assumptions of one's own moral superiority over the "filthy foreigner/heathen/infidel/whatever-you-call-them"
3. wishful thinking on the part of people who want to maintain absolute military supremacy and cannot abide an even playing field.

Assumptions of one's own innate superiority are very common in nations. I'm sure Iran is guilty of such vainglorious assumptions too! However, Iran is the one at a disadvantage here. I can readily see why they would want a similar strike capability to their most serious foes in the region, and I do not regard their wanting that as justifying a pre-emptive attack on them.

What happens when you have relative military parity is this: a lengthy stalemate, such as the Cold War. What happens when you don't is instability, invasion, and warfare, because the stronger attack the weaker whenever they think they can get away with it. This is why the world has become a much more dangerous place since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, and it is why we have seen many of the recent wars.

The "Peace Dividend" that we were promised by our leaders when the Soviet system ended never came, did it? The middle class is worse off now than they were then. Military spending has gone up. Parity in weapons systems is far safer than one side in a confrontation having a clear advantage over the other.

And no one, in my opinion, has a moral exemption which allows them the luxury of pre-emptively attacking whom they want, when they want. Not Israel, not the USA, not Hezbollah, not Hamas, not Iran. No such attacks are justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:48 PM

If Iraq says that they are developing nuclear power for civilian purposes but the U.S. does not believe them, can the U.S. act unilaterally or must they act in agreement with the other signators?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 04:02 PM

"If Iraq says that they are developing nuclear power for civilian purposes but the U.S. does not believe them, can the U.S. act unilaterally or must they act in agreement with the other signators? "

In the case of the NPT, the body that determines compliance or violations is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They have already stated that Iran is in violation, hence the present sanctions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 10:05 PM

"Attacks on other countries are legal and justifiable only when one has already been attacked BY the armed forces of that country, in my opinion, and then in a reasonably proportionate manner." - Little Hawk.

How antiquated and how cosy - wake up little raptor what you are saying has not been understood as being the case for the last forty years.

You seem to love this phrase, "in a reasonably proportionate manner".

Does that mean if someone repeatedly punches you in the shoulder, that you repeatedly punch them in the shoulder?. Do they then escalate and punch you elsewhere, you respond in like fashion, until they eventually punch you and you end up dead. All this time time you have responded, "in a reasonably proportionate manner" - but you are the one that was attacked and you are the one that has ended up dead.

Now for my part Little Hawk, if ever somebody hits me, my response will be that they will end up flat on their backs, in such a way that it will take them a very long time to get up. Having got up they will know at the very least two very important things:
1. They will not want to lay a hand on me again.
2. They will know without question of doubt what I deem a, "reasonably proportionate manner" to mean.

Now then LH, oh champion of the underdog, apply that to situation that Israel has faced 24/7 for the period of the last 59 years from numerically superior, and far more affluent foes, who have vowed to "wipe the stain of Israel from arab lands", "to drive the Israelis into the sea", "to wipe Israel from the map", "to obliterate the Jews".

As an Israeli LH what would be your thoughts on the situation in general, what would you do - something vaguely approaching realistic and natural would be good for an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 10:59 PM

If the sanctions don't work, will the U.S. go it alone or does military action need to be authorized by the signators. In other words, what happens if the sanctions don't work?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 12:08 AM

"Does that mean if someone repeatedly punches you in the shoulder, that you repeatedly punch them in the shoulder?. Do they then escalate and punch you elsewhere, you respond in like fashion..."

In a word, Teribus...yes. Exactly that. If I am a nation-state with an armed forces, then that is what I would do, figuratively speaking. I would not reply to a "punch in the shoulder" by immediately chopping the other guy's head off with an ax or shooting him dead with a revolver, which appears to be what you are recommending. ;-) I think that's because you assume you're a whole lot better and more valuable than the other guy, so it doesn't really matter what happens to him if he has the nerve to punch you. I don't make that assumption.

Nor would I ever claim that I have the right, as a nation-state, to launch a first attack or a pre-emptive attack on another nation-state (as the USA & UK did to Iraq in 2003). I do have the right to respond to an attack by another nation-state with a similar degree of force, however, and that is what mutual deterrence is all about. That's why I suggest that it's a lot safer when neither side feels it can risk a major war with the other.

"As an Israeli LH what would be your thoughts on the situation in general, what would you do - something vaguely approaching realistic and natural would be good for an answer."

I would protect the borders of Israel and the people of Israel with every force at my command. I would continue maintaining an elite military sufficient to deter Arab states from open war. I would not make land invasions of Lebanon or anyone else, but I would defend my own border areas vigorously against any attacker. I would not make pre-emptive attacks on other nations. I would not keep expanding Israeli settlements on occupied land taken in Arab-Israeli conflicts, nor would I build a security wall in those areas. I might very well build a security wall along the Israeli borders themselves, however. If rocket attacks were made from Lebanon, I would reply to those attacks with artillery and airstrikes aimed at the people launching the rockets. I would negotiate a gradual return of the occupied lands in the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and I would gradually move the Israeli settlers out of the occupied areas, compensating them (the settlers) fully for whatever losses they suffered in that process, so that they would be able to re-establish themselves in Israel itself. I would openly declare to the world that yes, I do have nuclear weapons...approximately this many...and I am ready to use them anytime on anyone who launches a nuclear attack on Israel...or a conventional attack that appears to endanger the national survival of Israel (a successful Arab invasion, in other words...which is quite unlikely to occur, given the superiority of the Israeli forces on the battlefield).

I would enter into negotiations with the Palestinians and the various Arab states to see if together we could work toward establishing a Palestinian homeland that is sustainable and a general end to hostilities (mind you, I would do it fully aware that it might lead nowhere...but to give it a try is better than no try at all). I would expect the Arab states to also be willing to contribute to making that possible....it's not just Israel's responsibility alone to do it.

I would promise not to attack any Muslim nation-state that does not attack me first (with its conventional armed forces).

I would do everything possible to sustain Israel and defend it, but not by taking over lands outside the original borders of Israel. I would remain vigilant, well armed, and fully capable of repelling attacks on Israel.

In fact I am recommending the same form of legitimate self-defence for Israel which I would recommend for any nation that was under outside threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:29 AM

Following your outlined courses of action Little Hawk:

- First on a personal level, i.e. response to a physical assault you would be dead in short order.

- Second as Israel, congratulations, as a nation and as a sovereign state, you would have ceased to exist some 40 years ago, if not before.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:46 AM

Wrong T

-First on a personal level, depending one's traing to a physical assault you could deflect the assualt & use the attacker in such a way as to render them helpless & harmless without inflecting any harm & still control the situation. As a military man you should know this.

-Second is bullshit. Had a nation used those parameters they wouldn't have to worry so much about their permiters!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 03:05 AM

Your own ego has you by the tail, Teribus, and doesn't allow you to be objective in the least when arguing a point. You argue for the right to answer any assault, even a minor one, with a near-fatal retaliation...or with murder. I argue for sensible restraint and the use of the minimum necessary force in any given situation...which is an extremely wise and judicious course for both individuals and nations to follow.

Both civil and international law are on my side when it comes to that. People who do what you recommend end up in jail, Teribus.

Israel would be considerably better off right now, had they followed the middle path I recommend, and not occupied other people's lands (outside the original Israeli borders). They would have won a number of decisive victories and not sullied their own national image in the process. They would have far more friends in the world. They would be far MORE secure and respected among nations than they presently are.

I consider people with your kind of slegehammer approach to life to be a great threat to the survival of Israel, Teribus. Not that you mean to be, you just are, because you don't know when to stop...and you have this odd characteristic of seeing evil only on one side of an old and bitter political dispute. It's never that simple. Both the Israelis AND their foes in the Middle East have genuine grievances. Both have suffered great loss. Both deserve to be listened to seriously, each by the other, and compromises need to be made in order to find a solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:20 AM

The same old tactic, Little Hawk, first put words into my mouth then take me to task over them - pathetic.

"I would not reply to a "punch in the shoulder" by immediately chopping the other guy's head off with an ax or shooting him dead with a revolver, which appears to be what you are recommending." - Little Hawk

OK then Little Hawk where in whatever I have said has there been any mention of chopping off heads? Where in whatever I have said has there been any mention of shooting people dead? I did however mention this:

"my response will be that they will end up flat on their backs, in such a way that it will take them a very long time to get up"

Ever seen anybody who has had their head chopped off get up Little Hawk?

Ever seen anybody who has been shot dead with a revolver get up Little Hawk?

Very funny Barry - now go back and read what the premise under discussion here actually is. Perhaps Barry you can tell us how long, when faced with an external threat that Israel can afford to remain fully mobilised before the country ceases to function and suffers long term economical affects. I'll give you a clue Baz, it's what drove Israeli decisions and actions in the "Six Day War"

Now then let's take a look at what Little Hawk sees as being something vaguely approaching realistic and natural from an Israeli viewpoint.

1) "I would protect the borders of Israel and the people of Israel with every force at my command."

Realistic - That they already do.

2) "I would continue maintaining an elite military sufficient to deter Arab states from open war."

Realistic - That they already do in spite of the fact that both my enemies and my own forces are conscripted with their standing force levels being much superior in numbers to mine. I therefore have to convince my enemy that my fewer numbers can punch very much above their weight. I also must, at all cost, in any given situation, keep the initiative.

3a) "I would not make land invasions of Lebanon or anyone else, but I would defend my own border areas vigorously against any attacker."

3b) "If rocket attacks were made from Lebanon, I would reply to those attacks with artillery and airstrikes aimed at the people launching the rockets."

I've lumped these two together Little Hawk because to follow what you suggest would be a completely ineffective response to the scale and type of attacks that you claim to be defending vigorously against. Part b above, I would like confirmation, from you, on this. You seriously advocate attacking those people launching the rockets (Over 1000 per day at one stage by the way) with artillery and airstrikes in the full understanding and knowledge that those firing those rockets are doing so from selected sensitive locations surrounded by civilians. That is what you would do?

You make no mention that under the terms of the UN brokered cease-fire Hezbollah should have by now disarmed - no action has been taken on this by either the Lebanese Government, Lebanese Army, the UN or Syria. Under the terms of the same cease-fire agreement an arms embargo should have been put in place to starve Hezbollah of resupply of rockets and other weapons - no action has been taken on this, in fact since this measure was set Hezbollah's supplies of rockets and offensive weapons have never been higher.

Now faced with such circumstances, little hawk, your best defence is to push those firing the rockets back to a range where they can no longer reach your territory.

4) "I would not make pre-emptive attacks on other nations."

So in all seriousness you would wait for them to attack you, then respond. Hmm? Now would that response be in the form of vigorous defence of your border with every force at your command? Or would that response be "in a reasonably proportionate manner"?

Had the Israeli's followed your course of action Little Hawk they would have been wiped out in 1967.

The requirement for pre-emptive attacks was born with the nuclear weapon. As both a strategy and tactic it has been around, and has been accepted, by all for a long time.

5a) "I would negotiate a gradual return of the occupied lands in the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and I would gradually move the Israeli settlers out of the occupied areas, compensating them (the settlers) fully for whatever losses they suffered in that process, so that they would be able to re-establish themselves in Israel itself."

5b) "I would not keep expanding Israeli settlements on occupied land taken in Arab-Israeli conflicts, nor would I build a security wall in those areas. I might very well build a security wall along the Israeli borders themselves, however."


I would rather hope that this would extend right across the board Little Hawk - That it would also apply to the Arab side as well as the Israeli one. In which case the following should be returned to Israel as part of this process:

- Gaza (captured from Israel and annexed by Egypt in 1948);

- The whole of the West Bank of the Jordan (Captured from Israel and annexed by Jordan in 1948 - true enough they did relinquish their claim to it in 1988, according to the UN the current status of the West Bank is that of a territory "owned" by no-one at present);

- The area around the Sea of Galilee and the on the Golan defined by the 1923 Paulet-Newcombe line (Captured from Israel and annexed by Syria in 1948).

Now you're talking Little Hawk - If that is what you are actually advocating - or as usual should all the give in these negotiations be on the Israeli side.

But Israel unilaterally gave relinguished all claim to Gaza, abandoned its settlements there and handed the area over to the Palestinian Authority on the condition that indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population of Israel would not be launched from Gaza. The PA accepted this deal. Now tell us Little Hawk, did the indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population of Israel cease? Or did they continue as before? Did Israel respond to such attacks with, how did you advocate it - "I would reply to those attacks with artillery and airstrikes aimed at the people launching the rockets" - this they did and I sort of remember that at the time you objected strongly to them doing that - Now it's OK? Make up your mind chum, you can't have it both ways.

6) "I would openly declare to the world that yes, I do have nuclear weapons...approximately this many...and I am ready to use them anytime on anyone who launches a nuclear attack on Israel...or a conventional attack that appears to endanger the national survival of Israel (a successful Arab invasion, in other words...which is quite unlikely to occur, given the superiority of the Israeli forces on the battlefield)."

Yes I'd go along with that. Very pleased to see that you acknowledge precisely the threat that is posed to Israel by her neighbours - that of total destruction. It would work very well for neighbouring Governments, but totally ineffective as a deterrant to the terrorist organisations that those Governments support? How would this scenario be dealt with:

Iran secretly obtains nuclear weapons. It then supplies a couple of fairly low yield weapons to either Hezbollah or Hamas, who then smuggle them into Israel. Two cities are targeted Tel Aviv and Haifa. The bombs are detonated, what does Israel do? How does it respond, taking it for granted that after such an attck they are capable of responding? Now tell me what would make this unlikely, nay impossible to happen?. Please don't witter on about loss of Palestinian lives and effects of fall-out on neighbouring Arab countries, the Iranians couldn't give a fig about their own population let alone a bunch of strangers 1000 kilometers away.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:50 AM

A good summary, T.

Now let us see what LH et al will say.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM

15 British sailors detained by Iran
Updated 11m ago |   



LONDON (AP) — Iranian naval vessels arrested and seized 15 British sailors and marines on Friday in Iraqi waters moments after they searched a merchant ship, the Ministry of Defense said.
Britain summoned Iran's ambassador in London to demand their immediate release.

The British personnel from the frigate HMS Cornwall were "engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters," and had completed their inspection of a merchant ship when they were accosted by Iranian vessels, the ministry said in a statement.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and ... the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office," the ministry said.


ON DEADLINE: Read more about the British soldiers

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

"I've got 15 sailors and marines who have been arrested by the Iranians and my immediate concern is their safety," the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, told British Broadcasting Corp television.

Lambert said it was a routine boarding. The skipper of the vessel had "answered all the questions, and the leader of the boarding party cleared him to continue with his business."

Lambert said the Cornwall lost communication with the boarding party, but a helicopter crew saw the Iranian vessels approach.

A fisherman who said he was with a group of Iraqis from Basra in the northern area of the Gulf said he witnessed the event. The fisherman declined to be identified because of security concerns.

"Two boats, each with a crew of six to eight multinational forces, were searching Iraqi and Iranian boats Friday morning in Ras al-Beesha area in the northern entrance of the Arab Gulf, but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters," said the fisherman.

BBC reporter Ian Pannell on HMS Cornwall said the sailors had just boarded a dhow when they were accosted.

"While they were on board, a number of Iranian boats approached the waters in which they were operating — the Royal Navy are insistent that they were operating in Iraqi waters and not Iranian waters — and essentially captured the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel at gunpoint," Pannell said.

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab between Iran and Iraq. Iran said that before that group was released, British diplomats acknowledged the British boats entered the Iranian waters by mistake.

Britain's Defense Ministry subsequently said, however, that the captives believed they had not entered Iranian waters.

The U.S. 5th Fleet said the Royal Navy sailors were assigned to a naval task force whose mission is to protect Iraqi oil terminals and maintain security in Iraqi waters under the U.N. mandate of the Security Council resolutions on Iraq.

The fleet said in a statement issued by its headquarters in Bahrain: "The boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters," the statement said.

The Iranians seized the Britons at 10:30 a.m. Iraqi time, the statement added.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 11:26 AM

"The Czech crisis was really the last chance to stop Hitler's war." - Little Hawk (21 Mar 07 - 09:58 PM)

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hitler's advisors and members of the German General Staff told Hitler that if faced with having to fight a war on two fronts (i.e. against Britain and France in the West and against Russia in the East). He had to fight in the West no later than 1938 and attack in the East before 1944.

On the night the Munich "Peace Deal" was done, Hitler was absolutely furious. He thought that he had suceeded in pushing too hard, he thought that he would get his war in the west on schedule - He didn't. The worthless piece of paper that Chamberlin brought back from Munich, turned out to be not-so-worthless, it bought Britain time.

Time to re-equip its fighter squadrons with modern aircraft that were equal to those in Luftwaffe service.

Time to perfect and install Radar and train fighter controllers.

Time to work on ASDIC

Time to design cheap and easily produced escort vessels (the Flower Class Corvette).

Without all those things being done during 1938 and 1939, things would have turned out rather differently.

The time to have stopped Hitler was in 1936 when he occupied the Rhineland. According to the memoirs of General Heinz Guderian if the German Army had been confronted by a single French Gendarme on the bridge they used to march back into the Rhineland the German Army was under orders to turn round and go back. Unfortunately for the entire world there was no French Policemen on that bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:32 AM

The Results of Diplomacy
In Iran's case, they've been pretty thin.
Thursday, March 29, 2007; Page A18


IRAN'S SEIZURE of 15 British sailors and marines on the day before the U.N. Security Council approved another resolution imposing sanctions on Tehran for its nuclear program may have been a coincidence. But the seizure illustrated a stubborn reality about the diplomatic campaign the Bush administration embraced two years ago: While successful on its own terms, the campaign has yet to produce any significant change in Iranian behavior.

Administration officials were encouraged by signs of dissension in the Iranian leadership after the first of two unanimous sanctions resolutions passed the Security Council in late December. Before the second resolution was introduced, there were talks between Iranian and European officials about ways to renew negotiations. Yet the Iranian work on uranium enrichment has continued; there are signs the regime is racing to complete an industrial installation with thousands of centrifuges that it can present to the world as an accomplished fact.

Now Iran is parading captured British sailors before cameras and using their purported confessions of trespassing in Iranian waters as propaganda in a way that suggests an eagerness to escalate rather than defuse confrontation with the West. Yesterday, Britain offered evidence that its service members were captured in international waters and rightly called their treatment "completely unacceptable." Though Iran's foreign minister said a female sailor would be released "very soon," the television broadcast suggested the prisoners had been coerced.

It's widely believed that power in Iran is divided among competing factions, and it could be that hard-liners are seeking to preempt any steps by the regime to comply with the Security Council. It's impossible to predict what might come out of Tehran before the next U.N. deadline in late May. Yet what has happened so far is sobering.

Bush administration officials have been congratulating themselves on the relative speed and deftness with which the latest sanctions resolution was pushed through the Security Council. They are right, in a way: The diplomatic campaign against Iran has been pretty successful by the usual diplomatic measures. Not only has the United States worked relatively smoothly with European partners with which it differed bitterly over Iraq, but it has also been effective lately in winning support from Russia, China and nonaligned states such as South Africa.

Critics who lambasted the administration's unilateral campaign against an "axis of evil" a few years ago ought to be applauding the return to conventional diplomacy. We, too, think it's worth pursuing, especially when combined with steps short of a military attack to push back against Iranian aggression in the region. Still, two years after President Bush embraced the effort, it has to be noted: The diplomatic strategy so far has been no more successful than the previous "regime change" policy in stopping Iran's drive for a nuclear weapon.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802051.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

Well, Teribus, I am pleased to see that we agree on a number of points about the defence of Isreal, although not all of them. Isn't it wonderful that we can actually agree on several? I think so. I think if you would spend more energy on attempting to find agreement that it would be more productive than your usual approach, which is to examine other people's statements under a microscope for any flaw you can pounce on.

Do you see that I do support Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by people? I hope so.

I don't agree with your assessment of Germany's military position in 1938....I don't think they were ready at all for war in the West then...but it would make an interesting thing to look into further.

I don't think it's particularly vital for me to consume a half-hour or so into answering every detail of your every statemtment right now... ;-) What difference would it really make? Is there a God up there who will reward whoever scores the most points in a debate between Teribus and LH on Mudcat? Naw.... If there was, he wouldn't waste his time on that. To put it another way, who (outside of possibly Bearded Bruce) gives a flying flip? ;-)

Just be glad that we do agree on a number of fundamental ways in which Israel can best defend itself. We don't have to agree on all of them.

As for stopping the various terrorist and suicide attacks on Israel by shadowy groups and individuals who may or may not be supported by this or that Muslim government...there IS no military tactic whatsoever that can be 100% effective in doing that. There simply isn't a military solution to ending all such violence. Only a gradual series of political compromises and new agreements and a corresponding shift in general Arab-Israeli attitudes toward one another can end such attacks...and that may take generations.

I suggest it will take even longer than getting you and I and Bearded Bruce to agree with everything each of us says on this forum... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:28 PM

"than getting you and I and Bearded Bruce to agree with everything each of us says on this forum"

General comment- not addressing any specific post at this time:

I, for one, do not require that we AGREE on everything said- but it would be nice to get a look at the evidence being used to form each of our opinions. Some consensus as to the facts being considered would be useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:22 PM

Whatever...Bruce I am not getting paid enough to look up every darn fact someone else on this forum wants to know. ;-)

Look, I'm just here chatting about things I happen to find interesting for some reason. It's one of my hobbies. If someone were to pay me well to document every flippin' thing I talk about here in excruciating detail, I'd consider it. But that ain't gonna happen. ;-)

By the way....I AGAIN unintentionally spelled "Israel" as "Isreal" in a previous post. God, I hate it when I do that! I bloody well know it's spelled "Israel". Is-ra-el. I've known that since I was about 6 or 7 years old, matter of fact, so excuse my typos when they occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:24 PM

600!!!! I win an all expense paid trip to the Virgin Islands!