BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:14 AM

Nickhere - Ahmadinejad is a politician with an election coming up. He ran on a platform of bringing nuclear power to the Iranian people to improve their civilian infrastructure. He doesn't really care what the outside world thinks, he is focussed on getting votes inside Iran. All of his posturing is politically motivated. He does not make policy and he does not command the military.

He's sort of a one man horse and pony show. I think everyone takes him entirely too seriously. I also think that as far as the Iranian people are concerned, his political life is over. I just hope the U.S. doesn't jump the gun. If they refrain from intervening at this point, the Iranians will take care of their own problems and Ahmadinejad is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:09 AM

Sorry. He has 28,000 . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:03 AM

The American commander in the Pacific says he hes enough troops to handle North Korea shoud it invade the South. He has 128,000 and South Korea has 690,000. Doesn't sound much like folks thinking about peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:21 PM

One thing I can't figure: Iran MUST know that it's open nuclear programme is an open invitation to be attacked by the USA, whether it's for peaceful purposes or not. The USA invaded Iraq on a far lesser pretext - the non-existent WMD and imaginary links to al-Qaeda. The Iranian president saves US intelligence a load of work by giving step-by-step updates about the progress of his nuclear programme, while evn listing places where it's going on (Nanatz). Meanwhile US battleships assemble in the Straits of Hormuz like schoolboys by the bike shed in the school yard getting ready for a scheduled fight. What is the Iranian president thinking? If I was conducting a nucelar programme for any reason in today's world and if I was not a US ally, I'd be doing it as secretly as possible. Indeed I'd be doing it as many miles underground as possible, out of sight of spy satellites and nosy UN inspectors. I'd wait until I actually had a nuclear bomb or two, then I'd announce it to the world in a spectacular above-ground blast no-one could deny, when it'd be too late to stop me.

None of this seems to add up, unless Ahmadinejad actually WANTS the USA to attack Iran. Maybe that'll be the straw that breaks the camel's back and starts all out war between Islamic countries and the West, dragging in those countries like Russia and China unwilling to see almost ALL the main oil sources under US control......World War Three anyone?

"Today, people are on the streets every day; they have abandoned fear, and are fighting tooth and nail to start their revolution"

And if the US invade, all of these protesting people will probably be slaughtered along with everyine else. Frying pan to fire....just like Iraq.

Meanwhile another story slips under the radar, how the USA allowed North Korea to ship arms to Ethiopia despite its own lobbying to sucessfully get a UN embargo placed on North Korea for continuing its nuclear programme last autumn. The arms shipment came after the UN sanctions and was done with US knowledge and approval. Mainly because the Ethiopians intended using them to fight Islamist groups along the border. Rules and laws are very flexible things indeed when they 'need' to be!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:27 AM

North Korea nuclear deadline slips By CHARLES HUTZLER, Associated Press Writer
28 minutes ago



BEIJING -       North Korea missed a Saturday deadline for shutting down its main nuclear reactor, and a key U.S. negotiator said the country must keep the disarmament program from foundering.

The United States and other governments involved in six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear programs said the slipping of the 60-day deadline was significant, but not yet fatal to a two-month-old agreement that laid out a timetable for disarmament.

"It's time for the North Koreans to get moving on their issues," Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator, told reporters after meeting in Beijing with his Chinese counterpart.

Hill ticked off the unmet conditions of the February agreement: North Korea's failure to shutter its Yongbyon reactor and allow verification by U.N. inspectors, and       South Korea's resulting refusal to ship 50,000 tons of fuel oil to the North.

Saturday's missed deadline marked the latest setback for an agreement that, when reached in February, offered the prospect of disarming the world's newest declared nuclear power.

North Korea successfully tested a nuclear bomb in October.

But the timetable was tripped up by a dispute over North Korean deposits frozen in a tiny Macau bank, which was blacklisted by Washington for allegedly abetting money-laundering and counterfeiting. North Korea refused to make any move until the funds issue was resolved, but the matter — which was supposed to have been resolved in mid-March — dragged on until this past week.

Acknowledging that the frozen funds issue had bedeviled the talks, Hill said that the funds were now ready, and that North Korea should tap them and take steps to meet its other commitments.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry, in a statement released by the government news agency, said Friday that it would carry out its side of the agreement "when the lifting of the sanction is proved to be a reality."

The North Korean capital was consumed by preparations for Sunday's birthday of the communist nation's late founder, Kim Il Sung, and the country had no response to the latest comments from Hill.

In a typically truculent, 70-minute speech on state television, North Korea's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong Nam, vowed to defend the communist country from U.S. and Japanese attack.

Earlier in the day, Hill had struck a more pessimistic note, saying the North's lack of action over the 60-day milestone had sapped momentum from the disarmament process.

After talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wu Dawei, Hill said he was persuaded "to show patience for a couple more days."

Once that's done, he expected that negotiators for the six countries involved — South Korea, Japan and Russia as well as the U.S., North Korea and China — would likely meet again before the end of the month to discuss additional the next phases in disarming North Korea.

South Korea, which supports rapprochement with the North, played down the failure to meet the 60-day deadline, calling it a technicality.

"What is important is whether there is any wavering in political will," South Korea's chief nuclear negotiator, Chun Yung-woo, said in a telephone interview.

____

AP reporters Jae-soon Chang in Seoul and Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 05:53 AM

According to what is being reported by MSM it looks as though the North Koreans are up to their old tricks again, as yet another agreed deadline for actions on their part slips past, while they labouriously "verify" whether or not their 25million US$ (unforged) has been defrosted (normally this would only take a single phone call).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 03:53 PM

I sort of like

"Attacking Hizbollah, eliminating their terror training camps and logistical support will prevent the terrorism campaign awaiting the West if Iran is attacked. Iran can be cut off from its agents, and the West and the Siniora government in Lebanon can eliminate Hizbollah, stabilizing that young democracy."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 03:45 PM

If there is anything that America should understand it is this:

"Unlike the rest of the Arab world, our national fervor as Persians, not our religious fervor as Muslims, plays the preeminent role."

From the same article.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:53 PM

the rest of the article...


"Many more perished for speaking out against the government, inside Evin and other prisons. I know this intimately because I represent a group of nineteen political prisoners, many of whom are on death lists. This is how Iran treats its own people.

Yet, if the US attacks Iran, the Iranian government's fondest wish will be granted, and many more young men will die.

A US attack on Iran will spur the tyrants to genocide, killing any Iranian standing up to challenge the government. Unlike US tolerance of opposition in wartime, Iranian rules of war state that anyone speaking out against the government has committed treason. Punishment for such a crime in Iran is a swift and brutal death.

Knowing this, the US is preparing for a massive attack, and those who can read a map and understand military strategies can see it. Joel Pousson, independent military analyst, has identified armadas now in the Arabian Sea as well as in the Eastern Mediterranean. Perhaps they are to attack Iran, and guard against a second front should Hizbollah attack Israel and the government of Lebanon. He reports training exercises on the long-quiet ranges of Ft Carson, Colorado, American reservists receiving unexpected activation orders, and offices tasked with protecting reservists' civilian jobs suddenly receiving additional staff.
Preparations are underway, but it is unclear whether the US will make the smart strike on Hizbollah and their terror web, or head from Iraq into Iran, where the government is preparing the same sort of IED and suicide attacks the US has faced in Iraq.

Attacking Hizbollah, eliminating their terror training camps and logistical support will prevent the terrorism campaign awaiting the West if Iran is attacked. Iran can be cut off from its agents, and the West and the Siniora government in Lebanon can eliminate Hizbollah, stabilizing that young democracy.

If, however, the US attacks Iran, the Straits of Hormuz could be blocked with just a couple of ships sunk. Thousands of university students, will be forced to don suicide vests, and will deploy as the terrorists that shuttled from Damascus airport for training and final dispositions in Iran launch attacks throughout the Mid East, Europe, and possibly, inside America.

The smart move, if a military move is to be made now, is to attack Hizbollah, economically isolate the Iranian government, and fund legitimate resistance groups in Iran to remove the Mullahs without the loss of one American life.

America is a smart nation. The leaders who call the shots can make the smart decision.

Ghazal Omid is an author of Living in Hell, human rights and women's rights advocate, and an expert on Iran and Shiah Islam."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:32 PM

Regime Change In Iran Is On Its Way

Ghazal Omid - 4/14/2007

"Regime change in Iran is on its way, from within. However, an outside attack on Iran will give the Mullahs exactly what they want. Iran has, rightfully, been identified as the main target in the US Global War on Terror. The regime has fostered the brutal insurgency in Iraq, nurtured terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and committed many other violations of international law. The recent kidnapping/release of the British Marines may make an attack seem a tantalizing quick fix.

This is a defensible position, and no one wants this government removed more than the Iranians living there now. For twenty-five years of my own life, I was taught to hate Americans, Israelis, and the rest of the Western World. At age fourteen, my challenge to the regime's watch dogs was, "I am not going to hate someone I don't even know!" This, and other simple forms of resistance, sacrificed my dream of living inside my own country. When I fled Iran, under death threats from the Sepah Pasdaran, Iranians didn't dare to speak against the regime publicly. Today, people are on the streets every day; they have abandoned fear, and are fighting tooth and nail to start their revolution.

Yes, I said revolution! In the past two months, there have been at least three major protests in Iran.

There have been many clashes between the Iranian people and the government's agents; they are fed up with a government that is banking on war with the West to guarantee its continued existence

Unfortunately, US politicians have either never read, or have forgotten, Persian history. Unlike the rest of the Arab world, our national fervor as Persians, not our religious fervor as Muslims, plays the preeminent role. We are compelled to fight the enemy of our country, even if we know the attacking nation has the best intentions.

The government of Iran knows this all too well, and exploited patriotism during the Iran-Iraq war, when millions of Iranian young men, who could now rise up and challenge the current regime, died on battlefields as their lives were just beginning...."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:59 PM

Iran vows to expand nuclear plans
POSTED: 9:06 a.m. EDT, April 10, 2007

Story Highlights• Iran planning to expand nuclear program, atomic energy head says
• Infrastructure at Natanz nuclear facility for 50,000 centrifuges, Aghazadeh says
• Iran has reached "industrial level" nuclear production, Ahmadinejad says
• IAEA says it cannot confirm Iran's nuclear activities for peaceful purposes

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- A day after Iran announced it had begun production of nuclear fuel on an "industrial level," the head of the country's atomic energy organization said Iran had plans to greatly expand its nuclear program.

"Iran's uranium enrichment program in Natanz does not only aim to install 3,000 centrifuges, but 50,000 centrifuges," Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said, according to the state-run IRNA news agency. Centrifuges are used in the process of enriching uranium.

The Natanz nuclear facility is located in central Iran, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) south of Tehran.

Iranian plans to expand its enrichment process to 50,000 centrifuges goes well beyond any previously announced aspirations by Tehran.

"I did not want to create any uncertainty about the nuclear program," Aghazadeh said. "But it is a fact that all of our infrastructure (in Natanz) ... is planned for 50,000 centrifuges."

According to Aghazadeh, Iran's Atomic Energy Organization "intends to develop, optimize and update nuclear technology in the future," including an international tender for construction of two 1,000-megawatt power plants, which he said will be announced in the coming days.

On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced his country has begun production of nuclear fuel on an "industrial level." (Timeline: Iran's nuclear program)

"Iran has succeeded in development to attain production at an industrial level," Ahmadinejad said in a speech at Natanz to mark the anniversary of the start of uranium enrichment at the plant.

"With great pride, I announce that as of today, our dear country, Iran, is among the countries of the world that produces the industrial level of nuclear fuel."

He vowed the fuel would be used for energy "and for the expansion of peace and stability," adding that the goal of "progress" for Iran was "irreversible."

Ahmadinejad's speech came on what Iran called its National Nuclear Feast, designed to send a message to the world that the nation would not halt its nuclear activities despite calls for it to do so from many Western governments, particularly the United States, and sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The IAEA -- the U.N. nuclear watchdog -- has said it cannot confirm Iran's nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes. IAEA officials say Iran has failed to cooperate with inspectors. (Watch the 'concerned' reaction to Iran's nuclear news )

But Ahmadinejad said Monday there had been "no evidence of violation in our activities."

"Despite the cooperation of our country and its transparency, despite the fact that our measures are legal, we have witnessed controversy created by some powers who benefit from the nuclear fuel cycle themselves," he said.

He committed much of his speech to slamming the "enemies" of Iran, who he said didn't want to see it make "progress."

"They have even resorted to the Security Council and tried to turn it into a tool to prevent the nuclear development of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:04 AM

White House: 'We are very concerned' about Iran's nukes
POSTED: 1:26 a.m. EDT, April 10, 2007
Story Highlights• Iran has reached "industrial level" nuclear production, Ahmadinejad says
• Iranian president says program to be used for "expansion of peace and stability"
• Iran could reconsider Non-Proliferation Treaty membership, chief negotiator warns
• U.S. State Department spokesman says Iran is defying international community
Adjust font size:
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's president announced Monday that his country has begun production of nuclear fuel on an "industrial level."

"Iran has succeeded in development to attain production at an industrial level," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran.

The announcement came on the first anniversary of the start of uranium enrichment at the plant.

President Bush contends Iran is using its program to develop nuclear weapons.

Leaders of European nations have expressed similar alarm.

"We are very concerned," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "We call on the Iranian regime to comply with its obligations to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and U.N. Security Council."

Monday, Ahmadinejad said, "With great pride, I announce that as of today, our dear country, Iran, is among the countries of the world that produces the industrial level of nuclear fuel." (Watch the 'concerned' reaction to Iran's nuclear news )

Iran: Nuke program 'irreversible'
Iran's leader vowed it will be used for energy "and for the expansion of peace and stability," adding that the goal of "progress" for Iran is "irreversible."

Ahmadinejad's speech came on what Iran called its National Nuclear Feast, designed to send a message to the world that the nation will not halt its nuclear activities despite calls for it to do so from many Western governments, particularly the United States, and sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The IAEA -- the U.N. nuclear watchdog -- has said it cannot confirm that Iran's nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes. IAEA officials say Iran has failed to cooperate with inspectors.

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Monday's events "another signal Iran is in defiance of the international community."

He added that it shows the international community has been right in levying sanctions.

McCormack called it a "missed opportunity" for Iran, arguing Iranian leaders should have announced they were suspending their uranium enrichment program in response to the international concerns.

No one disputes Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear energy program, he said, and added, "There is a negotiation alternative."

But Ahmadinejad said Monday there has been "no evidence of violation in our activities."

"Despite the cooperation of our country and its transparency, despite the fact that our measures are legal, we have witnessed controversy created by some powers who benefit from the nuclear fuel cycle themselves," he said.

He committed much of his speech to slamming the "enemies" of Iran, who he said don't want to see it make "progress."

"They have even resorted to the Security Council and tried to turn it into a tool to prevent the nuclear development of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Before Ahmadinejad spoke, Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh said, "We have gathered, thanking Almighty God for the introduction of the uranium enrichment program to the industrial phase, and once again we thank almighty God for allowing us to attain industrial enrichment plans."

Iran gave no indication it intends to capitulate to international demands.

At schools throughout the country, bells were rung Monday in celebration, and children chanted slogans, such as: "Nuclear energy is an inalienable right of the Iranian nation" and "No country has the right to deprive Iran of its indisputable right."

"The Iranian nation is in need of nuclear fuel cycle," state-run news agency IRNA said.

At the United Nations in New York, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon held out hope for a resolution to the dispute.

"I sincerely hope that even at this time when (the) Iranian government is undergoing Security Council sanctions, that it could engage in dialogue with the international community," he said.

"This is very important for any country to fully comply with the Security Council resolutions. I urge (the) Iranian government to do so."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,John T. M
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:02 PM

This limp wristed tool is gone,He is a joke. His Saudi allies have abandoneed him. His secy of Defense defies him, so does Condi. Congress!!! defies him. He is a man in the wicker basket waiting for someone to light the match. He is gone. Along with Gone zal is.. There will be no war in Iran. The tool can't manage it. Count the days.
so let it be written so let it be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:46 PM

Teribus: "Nickhere, your post of 29 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM.Properly categorised - without doubt the greatest load of bulshit I think I have ever had the misfortune to read on this forum.Complete and utter crap from start to finish - Well said indeed!! - Absolute drivel more like"

Always delighted to oblige, Teribus! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:56 PM

Once in awhile, we get to the truth of the matter. Nickhere and Littlehawk are absolutely right, teribus, and you are so dumbfounded that you just mutter and splutter all over the page.

You may not want to admit it, teribus, but the rest of the world already knows,

"The invasion of Iraq was,n't sanctioned by the UN, but America and Britain just went ahead and did it anyway and to hell with legal niceities. 'Legality' is a term they use to browbeat the 'other guy' into doing what they want, an excuse to attack him when he doesn't, and something that doesn't apply to oneself, unless it produces the result you want."

Sweeping it under the carpet is not going work anymore. Grow up and stop hiding behind your 'daddy'.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 08:02 PM

Nice to see that our roles remain so consistent, isn't it, mate? We each think the same of the other's perceptions of reality. It all comes down to who you trust and who you don't in this world: Who you think the "good guys" are and who you think the "bad guys" are, in other words. And that is a matter largely dependant on the whole previous history of one's own personal life experiences from the cradle to the present moment. You are an instinctive loyalist to the very Anglo-American governmental forces which I consider to be (at present) the greatest oppressors in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

Nickhere, your post of 29 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM.

Properly categorised - without doubt the greatest load of bulshit I think I have ever had the misfortune to read on this forum.

Complete and utter crap from start to finish - Well said indeed!! - Absolute drivel more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

"L.H is spot on to say the NPT is a load of legalese being used as a stick to beat Iran. The invasion of Iraq was,n't sanctioned by the UN, but America and Britain just went ahead and did it anyway and to hell with legal niceities. 'Legality' is a term they use to browbeat the 'other guy' into doing what they want, an excuse to attack him when he doesn't, and something that doesn't apply to oneself, unless it produces the result you want."

Well said, Nickhere. That is exactly my point. Legalities are only quoted by the USA and Britain when they happen to work in their favor. They are ignored and violated when they don't. Same goes for everyone else too. ;-) All governments who are bent on aggression essentially quote various legalities in a completely cynical fashion whenever it is to their advantage to do so...and ignore and violate other legalities when they are to their disadvantage. That is standard behaviour in the business of Realpolitick. Excuses are always made for why it's "okay", but it's just a PR game for the sake of the congregation. One needs to fool one's public into thinking a war is necessary, after all, or morale on the homefront could become a real problem, and could threaten someone's political career.

It's laughable to see some petty and essentially minor technical legality being used to justify a far more serious major illegality...like launching an illegal war of aggression, and that is what Mr Bush and Mr Blair did when they last went to war. I expect they will do it again. I would be quite surprised if they did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM

The principal purpose of the NPT was to limit membership of the nuclear club. Several countries had already acquired nuclear devices, so nothing much could be done about that. The cat was out of the bag. If the USA had had its way, it would have been the ONLY country with nukes, and since it showed a willingness to use them, no doubt it would be using at least the threat of them to determine world policy today. We are spared the worst of Big Bully because several other countries got them too, and the centre of power was dispersed. On the down side we were (and are) left with the threat of nuclear annihilation ever since if triggerr fingers get itchy.

Israel didn't sign up to the NPT so it could developp its own weapons. It didn't need the NPT to get aid as it was (and is) already being bankrolled by the US to the tune of several billion dollars a year. Plus a number of US physicists used 'right of return' to head off to Israel and bring their tech know-how with them. Britian the USA and the rest signed the NPT to stop the spread of a coveted technology, but had no intention of scrapping their own weapons (except old redundant ones).

So the NPT is a load of old cobblers, in short. Mulitalteral nuclear disarmament is the only way to guarantee our future, but who's going to make the first move? No-one wants to be first and warmongerers like Bush etc., are simply upping the stakes with their aggression. Iran sees what happens when North Korea is presumed to have nukes - it's treated just like any other gentleman member of the club. As I've said before, the best nuclear 'deterrent' is to cut back on some of the fear-mongering and posturing and start practising what is preached.

L.H is spot on to say the NPT is a load of legalese being used as a stick to beat Iran. The invasion of Iraq was,n't sanctioned by the UN, but America and Britain just went ahead and did it anyway and to hell with legal niceities. 'Legality' is a term they use to browbeat the 'other guy' into doing what they want, an excuse to attack him when he doesn't, and something that doesn't apply to oneself, unless it produces the result you want.

Iran will probably be invaded anyway, nukes or no, because a cabal of US and other 'western' politicians have decided it's time to re-draw (yet again) the map of the Middle East to suit their current needs. The unfortunate indians - I mean, citizens, who happen to be in the way of their latest project will probably put up some kind of a fight and be flattened, just like the Iraqis, God help them. Meanwhile, lost in all the talk about 'spreading democracy' (makes democracy sound like some kind of virus, doesn't it?) and 'making the world a safer place' is Robert Mugabe, beating and shooting opposition parties and running is country into the ground. But, the 19th century has passed, and the West has already looted Africa for whatever was worthwhile, and so you won't see any marines turning up in Zimbabwe to save the beleagured people from an oppressive dictator.


B.Finn: "Which is what the US should do with Bush, Rummey, Rice, the Wolf, Cheney & others! Arrest them before they start of WWIII"

Well said. Well said!

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!

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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:38 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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....