BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception

Subject: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: freda underhill
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 08:02 AM

U.S. Uses Drones to Probe Iran For Arms Surveillance Flights Are Sent From Iraq

unfortunately you will have to sign into this website (the washington post) to read this article - but its easy, like mudcat, tsakes a minute and doesnt cost anything. for those who dont wish to sign in, here are some excerpts..

U.S. Uses Drones to Probe Iran For Arms Surveillance Flights Are Sent From Iraq

The Bush administration has been flying surveillance drones over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs and detect weaknesses in air defenses, according to three U.S. officials with detailed knowledge of the secret effort. The small, pilotless planes, penetrating Iranian airspace from U.S. military facilities in Iraq, use radar, video, still photography and air filters designed to pick up traces of nuclear activity to gather information that is not accessible by satellites, the officials said. The aerial espionage is standard in military preparations for an eventual air attack and is also employed as a tool for intimidation.

The Iranian government, using Swiss channels in the absence of diplomatic relations with Washington, formally protested the incursions as illegal, according to Iranian, European and U.S. officials, all speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The drones were first spotted by dozens of Iranian civilians and set off a national newspaper frenzy in late December over whether the country was being visited by UFOs.

Iran is engaged in diplomacy with France, Britain and Germany aimed at ending a 2 1/2-year crisis over Tehran's nuclear ambitions that began when Iranian defectors exposed a large uranium enrichment facility in August 2002. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have been in and out of the country since then investigating nuclear facilities.

U.S. officials confirmed that the drones were deployed along Iran's northern and western borders, first in April 2004, and again in December and January. A former U.S. official with direct knowledge of earlier phases of the operation said the U.S. intelligence community began using Iraq as a base to spy on Iran shortly after taking Baghdad in early April 2003.

One U.S. intelligence official said different types of drones with varying capabilities have been deployed over Iran. Some fly several hundred feet above the earth, getting a closer view of ground activities than satellites, and are equipped with air filter technology that captures particles and delivers them back to base for analysis. Any presence of plutonium, uranium or tritium could indicate nuclear work in the area where the samples were collected.
The last drone sightings were in mid-January, about the same time that Iran's National Security Council met in Tehran to discuss them, according to an Iranian official.
"It was clear to our air force that the entire intention here was to get us to turn on our radar," the official said.
That tactic, designed to contribute information to what the military calls an "enemy order of battle," was used by the U.S. military in the Korean and Vietnam wars, against the Soviets and the Chinese, and in both Iraq wars.
"By coaxing the Iranians to turn on their radar, we can learn all about their defense systems, including the frequencies they are operating on, the range of their radar and, of course, where their weaknesses lie," said Thomas Keaney, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and executive director of the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins University.
But it did not work. "The United States must have forgotten that they trained half our guys," the Iranian official said. After a briefing by their air force three weeks ago, Iran's national security officials ordered their forces not to turn on the radar or come into contact with the drones in any way.
"Our decision was: Don't engage," the Iranian official said. Leaving the radar off deprives U.S. forces of vital information about the country's air defense system, but it also makes it harder for Iran to tell if an attack is underway.
The Iranian government lodged a formal protest through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which passed it on to the State Department, a Bush administration official said. The complaint was then forwarded to the Pentagon and to senior Bush administration officials, the official said.

Asked last Sunday about Iran, Rumsfeld told ABC's "This Week" that he had no knowledge of U.S. military activities in Iran. Rice, who helped plan the Iraq war, said during her European trip last week that an assault on Iran was not on the agenda "at this time."
So far, the drones have added little information to Iran's nuclear file, according to U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the mission.

Estimates vary on when Tehran could build a nuclear weapon using material from its energy program. Iran has agreed to stop enriching uranium, a key ingredient for a bomb, while it is engaged in talks with European governments. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, said if Iran resumes that work, it could have enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb within two years and could complete a weapon within three years. Iranian officials have said repeatedly that their country has no intention of building nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: freda underhill
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 08:17 AM

an interesting article by Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and founder of the Centre for Defence of Human Rights in Tehran

America's focus on human rights in Iran a cloak for its larger strategic interes

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:06 PM

These are preparations for war.

Now, just imagine the reaction in Fortress Amerika...if another country was flying spy craft over the USA on a regular basis!

The old Double Standard applies as usual. No one else can break the law and menace their neighbours, but the USA (and Israel) can.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 04:37 PM

Iran has never been anyone's 'friend' except Iran's. However, spy planes (now much safer with drones) have been a fact of life for decades (U2?). I don't know that it is preparation for war necessarily. Simply wise for the US to see what it might be getting itself into--and from whence a strike might come. IMO. Good eye, Freda.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 05:08 PM

Iran has agreed to stop enriching uranium, a key ingredient for a bomb, while it is engaged in talks with European governments. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, said if Iran resumes that work, it could have enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb within two years and could complete a weapon within three years. Iranian officials have said repeatedly that their country has no intention of building nuclear weapons.

Gee, last time an Arab country told us they had no nuclear weapons program, they were telling us the truth.

This time might be different though, right?


A

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: gnu
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 05:12 PM

I still say, and have for over a year, that the Sudan is next, the probabilty of which is 95%, plus or minus a standard deviation of Syria. After all, that's where the WMD's were shipped (hidden?) before the invasion of Iraq. However, since BLiar and Big Q are bosum buddies now and billions of Iraq's money and gold are "missing", I would put my money on the Sudan. All really depends on the Chinese oil intersts in the Sudan and how much the west can garner UN and public sympathy for the human rights violations in the Sudan. Kinda looks like they might be willing to back down in the Sudan if Taiwan declares.... It's six o'clock on Fridaty night! I am a fat Canadian with a fridge full of beer and the Scott's Tournament of Hearts (curling) coming on TV! It's a Canadian thing eh. Gotta go. Beauty thread though.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 05:14 PM

as Reagan said....Trust, but verify. I think it would cover this as well.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 05:42 PM

Yes, but my point is, it is the USA that has the means (and the sublime arrogance) to brazenly spy on other people's territory, violating their airspace...and seems to believe it has the divine right to do so whenever it pleases.

If anyone dared do that to the USA, it would be seen as an act of war and would be responded to on a war basis at once.

Double standard!

The Roman Empire had a similar lofty view regarding its divine right to unilateral actions and interventions in the ancient World...and was "loved" for it by the recipients of Roman invasions about as much as the USA is loved in the 3rd World today.

All of this is not intended as a comment on American citizens, merely on their rulers.

Sudan? Well, maybe. I'm betting Iran, because that's where the media hype is mostly going. Syria gets me number 2 vote for next target.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 05:59 PM

Hey, it deosn't particularly bother me that the US is spying on Iran. What does bother me is three-fold:

1. When it's time to whip the masses up fir the next war Bush and his boys will show us sinister looking pictures, like of a building (Oh how scarey! A building!!! Everyone run fir your life thru the streets of some big ass city!!!!) and then tell us that it houses (pick any or all):

   a. Incubators with babies which the Iranians will soon be pulling
      the plugs on...

   b. Chemical weapons plants...

   c. Beheading chambers...

   d. Nuclear weapons plants...

2. Irregardless of any evidence of scarey stuff Bush and Co. have allready grown bored with their last two wars and there's nuthin' that get'sw the chickenhawks more excited than a fresh new war. So they will attack.

3. As in the run-up to war in Iraq, Bush will demand that Iran prove it doesn't have any nuclear weapons. This is the most curious part of the equation. Like maybe some great mind can demonstarte how you go about proving that you don't have something is beyond me...

Meanwhile the saber rattling will escalate because like most bullies who have 2nd's to fill in for them,chickenhawk Bush loves threaten people. Tell ya what, this ol' hillbilly will go on record right now of challenging Bush to a fist fight. If I win, he pulls out of Irag, fires his neocon advisers, including Condi "Chickenhawk" Rice and calls for the establishment of a Department of Peace.

Yeah, Big Guy, bring it on. Name the time and place. I'll be there...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 11:47 PM

Oh...I would just LOVE to see that! Whap! Bap! Ugh! Oof! Oh! Wow. That must've hurt. President Bush is down for the count, folks. And...well...gosh, that appears to be it, folks. We have a knockout in 7 seconds, for the shortest champeenship fight on record.


Boooooo! Boooooooo! Boooooo!!!! (crowd goes nuts)

Only trouble is, the Secret Service would probably shoot you, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:02 AM

And that would be a great loss...

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:13 AM

I don't know if Iran has nuclear weapons or not but I'm sure not going to give the U.S. any credit for determining the truth of the matter. Seems that most of the world believes that Iran is developing nuclear energy but will be able to develop weapons should the need arise.

The U.S., of course, will exploit our fear of Sharia and nuclear capabilities in order to justify an invasion of Iran.

If I were Iran, I would certainly want a weapon big enough to keep the U.S. and Israel out of my territory. Its almost as if the U.S. is forcing a confrontation. They may not have weapons at this time but they are probably scrambling to develop the capacity so that they can protect themselves.

Lets just hope the U.S. will not act unilaterally.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:34 AM

That's a pretty slender hope, in my opinion. The US administration believes it has divine sanction to act unilaterally.

Kind of like what the mullahs believe. :-) Or Sharon. (double :-) )

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: GUEST,Keith A o He
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 12:11 PM

We DO know that Russia is building them a nuclear power station.
What does the most oil rich country in the world want with one of those?

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 12:22 PM

Look, man, if I was them I would want several of the World's biggest nukes RIGHT NOW. You know why? They've got the biggest battle fleet in the World (US Navy aircraft carriers) right off their coastline. They're already BEEN attacked all through the 1980's.   They've got the US Army and Marines positioned now in Iraq and Afghanistan...on either side of their borderline. They've got USA spy planes flying over their territory, doing an inventory on their defence positions and checking out juicy targets...as was done over Iraq before the last war.

The only thing that can possible protect a country under such circumstance is:

1. immediate and total surrender to foreign occupation and domination by the USA (not gonna happen!)

2. several nuclear weapons with immediate launch capability.

Wake up for a moment, pinch yourself, and remember that Iranians are human beings! Just like you. They want to survive and be in charge of their own affairs. If they had a few nukes, no one would invade them.

Of COURSE they want to build some!

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 12:38 PM

The US won't invade Sudan until the present government of that country has already cleared all of the people off of the land it (the US govt.) wants for oil.

I'm guessing Iran next, then Syria, then maybe Sudan.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:12 PM

Hubby--

"Trust but verify":---now there's a glib --and meaningless--line.

Absolutely--trust but verify. Verify what? The absence of something is not easy to prove. Look how easy it was in Iraq.

And if they can't--or won't--prove the absence of it, bomb 'em back to the Stone Age. After all, that's the only safe thing to do, right?

From what I read, many ordinary Iranians are actually positively inclined toward the US now, although the government is certainly not.

How much saber-rattling by God's agent at 1600 PA Ave will it take til all Iranians are unified----against us?

Then it will again be up to the vilified UN to pull Bush's chestnuts out of the fire--as it did in Iraq.

Another brilliant move by the geopolitical genius who claims to lead the US.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:36 PM

Ron,


The UN hasn't done crap in Iraq. The UN Security Council, for years and years, passed numerous resolutions for Iraq to fully disarm and to bring itself into line with the sanctions dealt out by the UN. Unfortunately, the top dogs in the UN at the same time had their hand in the cookie jar siphoning money out of the Oil for food program while letting France and Germany do business deals with Saddam that were a direct violation of the afore mentioned resolutions and sanctions. It's no surprise why France and Germany resisted so strongly before the war. They didn't want their cash cow to disappear.

Now….exactly what I said……trust, but verify. If the Iranians aren't building nuclear weapons then good for them. But even the Russians send spy satellites over waste dumps to verify that we are sticking to our commitments in as far as decommissioning certain aspects of our nuclear arsenal as far as all of the nuclear weapons treaties that were signed by Presidents Carter and Reagan. We also do it to them. It's all part of the same thing. If the drones can get us in and get a closer view of what's going on then all the better. If the Iranians don't like it then let them shoot them down. After all, if their not hiding anything then why are they not allowing people in to inspect the operations anyway?

You are correct in assuming that the Iranian people do support the US. Especially the student population. They long for freedom and want the same things that they see their peers doing around the world. The Chinese students as well. Remember Tiaenamen Square? Don't forget, Ron, the people in power in Iran are the same ones that ran out the Shah and took 53 Americans hostage in our own embassy during the late 70's. They are the ones that are now looking to have nuclear weapons. It's a little scary if you ask me. If there is something that we can do to prevent this from happening, then all the better.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:41 PM

Friendly neighbours to the north of the US remember that time.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:46 PM

Anything that can be done to prevent war, all the better.

The present policy toward Iran is making war far more likely, in my opinion, but I think that is because it's actually a preparation FOR war...as were the various maneuverings prior to the invasion of Iraq. None of that was about finding WMD's or establishing democracy. It was all about oil. So too will the next war be.

The USA's government does not promote democracy in the World...or even on its own soil. It just talks about democracy a lot. That is in order to mislead well-intentioned American citizens into supporting a corporate policy of invasion and robbery in the 3rd World.

The USA government is a compliant puppet of multi-national energy corporations and arms makers. They are the people who fund the Redemocrapublicants (1 political party, masquerading as two in order to hold phony elections which effectively change almost nothing, but serve to fool good people into imagining they still have a democracy). You play the game at voting time...you lose...the corporations win. It's that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:51 PM

Dear Hubby - France and Germany weren't the only ones with their hands in the cookie jar. Seems that Cheney as head of Halliburton was dirty dipping as well. That means that the U.S. knew exactly what was happening. Might be worth checking a few sources before you start pointing fingers.

From Common Dreams:

"But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Vice President Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil."

Maybe other countries thought if the U.S. was doing it, they must operate on the same playing field in order to secure their supply of oil.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:52 PM

Same here in Canada, IMO, LH. SSDD.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:00 PM

That's fer flippin' sure, Brucie! LH told me to say that, eh? We got 4 flippin' different ways to fool the Canuck voter. The poor Yanks got only 2. I pity them, eh?

- BDiBR

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:42 PM

Actually Mr. Hubby, the UN weapons inspection program was working quite well. Then the US kicked the inspectors out of Iraq and invaded it. And after all of the dust has settled (or some of it anyway), and even the Bush administration has admitted that there were no WMD in Iraq during the months leading up to and during the US led invasion of Iraq, we now know for a fact that the inspectors were right in what they had been saying all along, and they were doing a good job until the US kicked them out.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:48 PM

Oh yeah... also, I don't know why you would consider the Shah of Iran to have been any better for the Iranians than the Ayatollahs. The Shah was a brutal dictator of the Saddam school of dictatorship (and he was intalled into his position of power by the US through a CIA backed coup, which crushed the fledgeling democracy that had only recently been formed in Iran).

So that makes the US' grandstanding about "making the world safe for democracy" pretty laughable and totally hypocritical.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:51 PM

And the USA kicked them out, because they were in the way...!

The USA also invaded Iraq against the explicit wishes of the U.N. and of most of the World, including a majority of every civilian population in the World except in the USA and possibly Israel.

This places the USA basically in a position much like that of Mussolini when he attacked Ethiopia or Hitler when he attacked Poland in 1939 or Stalin when he attacked Finland in that same year...only difference being, the USA is so powerful that no other major power or alliance of powers dares declare war on it at this time. Hitler didn't have that luxury, since he was dealing with approximate equals in a military sense, namely France and England.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 07:59 PM

Hubby--

Congratulations on your usual unthinking knee-jerk anti-UN screed (actually, can't be a screed--not long enough). I would not have expected less of a perceptive and deftly stated answer from you). It's painfully obvious that the limit of Bushites' foreign policy expertise is "UN. Bad. Ugh".

Also, since you are a Bushite, I can't expect you to have any interest in facts (your mighty leader doesn't--why should you?)

However, being fully aware that talking to a Bushite is worse than talking to a wall--the wall at least does not try to fit the world into a Manichean straitjacket---still, a few points.

1) Carol C is dead right about Cheney, Halliburton and enforcement of sanctions against Saddam. Cheney not only was willing to look the other way when Halliburton stood to gain, but actually pushed for weaker enforcement of sanctions.

2) As I stated earlier (in fact, much earlier--April 2004, in a thread called "Irony: Bush and the UN", the UN has indeed pulled Bush's chestnuts out of the fire. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll explain again:

You may have noticed several Mudcatters drawing parallels between Iraq and Vietnam and predicting a similar quaqmire in Iraq. That did not in fact happen. Have you ever wondered why? It's because the opposition to the insurgency has been given an Iraqi face. When did this happen? When Allawi was officially made the temporary head of the government.

Even before this, the UN's rep, Sergio Vieira de Mello persuaded al-Sistani to let his followers join the Governing Council (under Bremer), if they wanted to. For this, and for other services to Iraq ----and indirectly to Bush----he paid with his life.

Now a fair number of Iraqis see Allawi as the Americans' man--which is a main reason he did not do very well in the recent election. But consider how much more unstable Iraq would be now with Bremer still in charge.

So who made the Iraqi face of the government possible? The loathed and despised UN.

The UN acted as an honest broker in finding an Iraqi likely to be at least temporarily acceptable to other Iraqis as successor to Bremer, whose rule had little support, for obvious reasons (the Mideast has seen colonial regimes before).

Who, pray tell, besides the UN, could have acted in this capacity? Do you think an Arab group would have been willing to negotiate with "the Crusaders"?

From a US domestic political standpoint, this was possibly even more crucial for Bush.

There was, in fact, a sizable contingent on the Right who were against Bush's Iraq adventure from the start. Patrick Buchanan, the probable head of this opposition, not only recently wrote a book titled "Where the Right Went Wrong"--an intriguing book, by the way---but has also already proven he has no problem running against his party's putative standard-bearer.

When it seemed likely that Iraqis would in fact be heading an Iraqi government, Buchanan and like-minded Republicans backed off overt opposition to Bush (especially in the form of a third party, which as I explained in another thread, is the single event most likely to kill an incumbent's chances, if that party takes votes from him)

More than this, the US general electorate, seeing an Iraqi face on the Iraqi government,--- made possible by the UN--, was convinced that there was in fact an exit strategy from Iraq (eventually)--thus it was safe to return to the comfortable obsession with homosexuals, terrorists, (and homosexual terrorists?)

Bush and the Bushites, if they had any sense and decency, would be blessing the UN every day, but of course it's a lot more fun and popular-- particularly when appealing to voters like your good self--- to curse it.

Don't worry-- I don't expect any Bushite to understand this, much less acknowledge it.

But if that loose cannon at 1600 PA Ave were to attack Iran, a similar scenario could easily happen.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 09:41 PM

Geographically, Iran is a hard place to invade. Counter-invasion forces have lotsa places to hide. Ask the Russians how things went in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 10:21 PM

Good point, brucie. On the other hand, they said the same thing before the we (the US) invaded Afghanistan. But we invaded it anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deceptio
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 10:32 PM

It's pretty easy for a high tech power like the USA (and Britain) to defeat the professional standing armies and air forces of a low tech 3rd World opponent. It is not so easy to deal with the occupation of their land and the guerrilla insurgency that inevitably follows.

The Russians found that out in Afghanistan. The Americans are in the process of finding it out, one body bag at a time.

When Hitler would get bogged down in one insoluble situation...like the standoff at the English channel...he would relieve the frustration by launching a new glorious attack somewhere else...like Yugoslavia, Greece, North Africa...Russia!

I am worried that Bush will resort to the same sort of unthinking "let's find a new quick victory" agenda. The end result of such an expanding agenda is usually a very large war with disastrous consequences for the fools who launched it. Quite possibly a world war. One can only get away with just so many unprovoked invasions before one runs out of credibility and friends once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:38 AM

When ABC warfare looks like a really convenient option, we will have opened the box and we will not be able to close the box. As ol' Albert said, "The living will envy the dead."

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 10:42 AM

Certainly hope "Hubby" is on the lookout for those black UN helicopters, which, even as we speak, are on their way to confiscate his guns.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Nick
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 11:17 AM

I would genuinely hope that the support from the UK would be at a hugely lower level than with Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: DougR
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 11:43 AM

L.H.: you're so full of it. The U. S. and it's coalition forces invaded Iraq because they were in violation of UN sanctions! Some of you just don't get it do you? You want to re-write history, and you just can't get by with it.

And Carol C:, again, I ask, if you are so dissatisfied with your country, which you seem to believe is responsible for just about every bad happening on earch, why in the heck don't you go on and move to Canada like you said you would like to years ago? You are so predictable:the U. S. wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 12:02 PM

That we a preparing to go invade Iran is Ridiculous, that being said all options are on the table, including tactical miniature nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM

DourR - You said, "The U. S. and it's coalition forces invaded Iraq because they were in violation of UN sanctions!"

Can you please give me a reference for this statement? I thought it was because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction.

If they were in violation of UN sanctions, why did the U.S. act unilaterally?

BTW, the U.S. (Halliburton and Cheney) were also violating the terms of the food for oil agreement.

Since when do you go to war because of a corrupt bureaucracy? Sorry, thats grounds for invading any and all countries.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 12:54 PM

As I have repeatedly told you when you have asked that question, DougR... I am a citizen of this country, and am therefore responsible to do my absolute best to make sure my country behaves responsibly, as opposed to your attitude of not giving a shit about being responsible for anything other than trying to get away with driving while under the influence of alcohol by beating breathalizer tests.

So there you go again with your bigoted (by your own definition) and intolerant attitudes towards other people's opinions. If you don't like what they say, tell them to leave the country.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM

Doug R--

This horse is so dead its ghost has no idea where it is.

Since you must be the slowest of all the Bushites we are honored to have here---yet again:



If the question is the enforcement of UN resolutions, the US had and has absolutely no right to unilaterally take it upon itself---against the UN's own expressly stated wishes--to enforce said resolutions.

If they are UN resolutions, it is up to the UN--AND NOBODY ELSE--to enforce them.

End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 04:30 PM

Actually, the act of invading Iraq by the US (et al) was a violation of UN resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 05:04 PM

Well, well, well...

I'm sniffin' out another "aluminum tubes" lie getting cooked up in Bush's PR Kitchen...

Yup, looks as if it's gonna go a little like this: "Back in 1987 Iranian officials met with Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani who has admiied to selling weapon parts to both N. Korea and Lybia, and what came out of this meeting was Iran purchasing certifuge designs and some parts that could be used for making a nuclear weapon... Now, everyone go out into the streets and scream..."

Yeah, like so what? Now adays you can get the same dign info off the internet. And the parts that were purchased, according to the IAEA, most likely were used for the peaceful production of energy. Might of fact, the IAEA's Director General, Mohammed ElBaradei recently said that there was no evidence to suggest Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program.

But, I'll guarentee ya that when Bush's team of PR folks have finished cooking up this little dish that there will be the same half a dozen folks her in Mudville who will lap it up and wash it down with the coolaid...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 05:13 PM

Correct. Doug, you are being willfully blind, that's all. You cannot pretend to honour a previous (and somewhat minor) U.N. resolution on Iraq by violating a subsequent very major U.N. resolution on Iraq which was passed specifically to STOP you from launching that pre-emptive invasion...

...unless you're an idiot, a hypocrite, or a liar.

I guess in Bush's case, it might be all three of those...but certainly the last two, anyway.

Or maybe I'll just be kind and say that Mr Bush succumbed to a major case of wishful thinking and selective listening. :-)

We do tend to see and hear only what we want to, right, Doug?

So just remain blind and deaf to the U.N.'s resolution against an American and Britsh invasion of Iraq, and you will continue to believe the sorry nonsense that you believe.

It's like saying, "My wife wanted me to make the neighbour pick up his garbage, so I went over there and shot him and picked it up myself! Now she's mad at me about that, but she's a stupid bitch anyway, and it's all her fault. She wanted the garbage picked up."

Meanwhile, the wife has begged you NOT to shoot the neighbour, because it would be irresponsible and criminal, and anyway, she just wanted the garbage picked up, that was all!

The wife in this case is the U.N. The neighbour is Iraq. And Bush is the guy who willfully ignores the wife's main resolution, in order to do what he wanted to do anyway...kill the neighbour and steal his property. Meanwhile, there's still garbage all over the place...because the garbage was not the point. The oil was the point.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 05:28 AM

from the washington post..
Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision

By Robin Wright, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, Feb 14, 2005

When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy -- potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions. But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.


Yesterday, the White House heralded the election and credited the U.S. role. In a statement, President Bush praised Iraqis "for defying terrorist threats and setting their country on the path of democracy and freedom. And I congratulate every candidate who stood for election and those who will take office once the results are certified." Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq.

Thousands of members of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite-dominated slate that won almost half of the 8.5 million votes and will name the prime minister, spent decades in exile in Iran. Most of the militia members in its largest faction were trained in Shiite-dominated Iran. And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran, which long served as its economic and political lifeline.

"This is a government that will have very good relations with Iran. The Kurdish victory reinforces this conclusion. Talabani is very close to Tehran," said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert on Iraq. "In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the United States was hoping for."

Added Rami Khouri, Arab analyst and editor of Beirut's Daily Star: "The idea that the United States would get a quick, stable, prosperous, pro-American and pro-Israel Iraq has not happened. Most of the neoconservative assumptions about what would happen have proven false." The results have long-term implications. For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations played Baghdad and Tehran off each other to ensure neither became a regional giant threatening or dominant over U.S. allies, notably Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf sheikdoms.

But now, Cole said, Iraq and Iran are likely to take similar positions on many issues, from oil prices to U.S. policy on Iran. "If the United States had decided three years ago to bomb Iran, it would have produced joy in Baghdad," he added. "Now it might produce strong protests from Baghdad." Conversely, the Iraqi secular democrats backed most strongly by the Bush administration lost big. During his State of the Union address last year, Bush invited Adnan Pachachi, a longtime Sunni politician and then-president of the Iraqi Governing Council, to sit with first lady Laura Bush. Pachachi's party fared so poorly in the election that it won no seats in the national assembly.

And current Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, backed by the CIA during his years in exile and handpicked by U.S. and U.N. officials to lead the interim government, came in third. He addressed a joint session of Congress in September, a rare honor reserved for heads of state of the closest U.S. allies. But now, U.S. hopes that Allawi will tally enough votes to vie as a compromise candidate and continue his leadership are unrealistic, analysts say.

"The big losers in this election are the liberals," said Stanford University's Larry Diamond, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation government. "The fact that three-quarters of the national assembly seats have gone to just two [out of 111] slates is a worrisome trend. Unless the ruling coalition reaches out to broaden itself to include all groups, the insurgency will continue -- and may gain ground." Adel Abdul Mahdi, who is a leading contender to be prime minister, reiterated yesterday that the new government does not want to emulate Iran. "We don't want either a Shiite government or an Islamic government," he said on CNN's "Late Edition." "Now we are working for a democratic government. This is our choice."

And a senior State Department official said yesterday that the 48 percent vote won by the Shiite slate deprives it of an outright majority. "If it had been higher, the slate would be seen with a lot more trepidation," he said on the condition of anonymity because of department rules. U.S. and regional analysts agree that Iraq is not likely to become an Iranian surrogate. Iraq's Arabs and Iran's Persians have a long and rocky history. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Iraq's Shiite troops did not defect to Iran.

"There's the assumption that the new government will be close to Iran or influenced by Iran. That's a strong and reasonable assumption," Khouri said. "But I don't think anyone knows -- including Grand Ayatollah [Ali] Sistani -- where the fault line is between Shiite religious identity and Iraqi national identity."

Iranian-born Sistani is now Iraq's top cleric -- and the leader who pressed for elections when Washington favored a caucus system to pick a government. His aides have also rejected Iran's theocracy as a model, although the Shiite slate is expected to press for Islamic law to be incorporated in the new constitution.

For now, the United States appears prepared to accept the results -- in large part because it has no choice.

But the results were announced at a time when the United States faces mounting tensions with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, support for extremism and human rights violations. On her first trip abroad this month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran's behavior was "something to be loathed" and charged that the "unelected mullahs" are not good for Iran or the region.

One of the biggest questions, analysts say, is whether Iraq's democratic election will make it easier -- or harder -- to pressure Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 07:44 PM

Here's deja vu all over again. It appears that special forces folks are already working on Iran. The fact that we had special forces in Iraq several months prior to that invasion was a very poorly kept secret. Here we go again, led by (as Colin Powell reportedly called them prior to Iraq) the "f---ing Crazies".

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: freda underhill
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM

Saturday, December 31, 2005 by Der Spiegel (Germany)
US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?

..in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006. German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago -- long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays.

The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets -- a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work.

According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission. DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.

In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:09 PM

I don't see how we're going to invade Iran or anyone else unless we get a draft going and raise taxes because we simply don't have the manpower or money to do it. Bush wouldn't dar do either and the GOP wouldn't let him if he tried. That's called making promises you can't keep.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Troll
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 03:27 PM

I find it amazing that nowhere in this thread has anyone mentioned the fact that the president of Iran has called for the destriction of Israel. That might be a reason for concern about their neuclear aspirations.

The work that the UN has done in setting up elections etc in Iraq was done at the request of the US, not to "bail us out" but because the UN is set up to do that sort of work. If you keep them away from the money, they do ok.

As I recall, the final resolution passed by the UN Security Council prior to the invasion of Iraq (1411?) gave permission the use force against Saddam. The major allies who were against the war (France, Germany) turned out to be complicit in the Oil for Food scandal.

As far as the Bush administration looking at the possibility of war with Iran, that should come as no surprise. There are war plans involving every country and they are constantly being refined. Just because it is being studied doesn't mean it's going to happen.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 06:01 PM

'the Oil for Food scandal.'

Was that anything like the Oil for Guns scandal?

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 08:41 PM

Troll, - "There are war plans involving every country and they are constantly being refined."

Thanks for the tip.

Care to back that up with a source?

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 08:47 PM

>>I find it amazing that nowhere in this thread has anyone mentioned the fact that the president of Iran has called for the destriction of Israel. That might be a reason for concern about their neuclear aspirations.<<

All you're doing is manufacturing a nuclear threat. Maybe you're a neocon! Did this guy say he was going to nuke Israel? No? Then I wouldn't worry too much about it. There are other ways of destroying Israel--a country that, to be honest, I don't care about.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 05:54 AM

dianavan,

"Care to back that up with a source? "

If you had any knowledge of military planning you would know that the competent military of any country will have plans for all likely contingencies in place, and being reworked as the situation changes.

The problems are the situations where they do not have existing plans, and have to make on the fly changes to existing plans for similar problems. THAT is when the real difficulties begin.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 07:16 AM

"TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's chief nuclear negotiator has rejected a Russian offer to produce nuclear fuel in its plants for Iran, the latest effort to resolve a diplomatic impasse over Tehran's nuclear program.

Speaking on state-run television Sunday, Ali Larijani argued the offer would deny his nation's right to "be in charge of its own fate" on energy matters.

He said Iran would be willing to have some, but not all, of its nuclear fuel produced outside the country.

Iran's hard-line conservative government insists it has the right to restart nuclear facilities and enrich uranium for the production of nuclear energy, despite fears by some other nations --including the United States -- that Tehran's true goal is to produce nuclear weapons.

Larijani said it is "logical that every country be in charge of its own fate regarding energy and not put its future in the hands of another country, even if that country is a friendly country."

Moscow had offered to enrich uranium in Russia for nuclear fuel and have it sent to Iran. The offer was backed by the United States and by Britain, France, and Germany, which have tried to negotiate a solution to the Iranian issue."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/01/iran.nuclear/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 07:37 AM

What UN Security Council Resolution prohibits the US and its allies from using force against Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Regime in Iraq? I do not believe that one exists or has ever been tabled - My reason for stating that is that for a resoultion to be passed it must be agreed by the Security Council, the USA as a permanent member of that body would veto any such resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 08:56 AM

btw, source refering to contingency plans...


"Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he'd never heard of the plan. He also said he wouldn't admit to knowing about such a plan if he did.

"We don't talk about any of our contingency plans," he said.

Has the Pentagon updated War Plan Red since the '30s?

"The Defense Department never talks about its contingency plans for any countries," Whitman said. "We don't acknowledge which countries we have contingency plans for.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412_pf.html

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 09:06 AM

The United States is mulling a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities this year and has informed NATO member states to make similar preparations, a report claimed. Military action against Teheran to foil its nuclear ambitions is one among several options being considered by NATO members, military Intelligence officials familiar with the Iran file told German daily 'Der Spiegel'.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Oman are also being updated with the plan, with American officials saying a military operation is "a possible option", without giving a timetable, 'Ynetnews' reported citing the report.

US planning to strike Iran this year: report
Sunday, January 01, 2006 Times of India

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 09:13 AM

January 01, 2006         

Russian atomic energy agency chief to visit Iran in Feb 2006

(Interfax News Agency Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)MOSCOW. Dec 31 (Interfax) - Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) chief Sergei Kiriyenko is planning to pay a working visit to Iran in February 2006, Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov told Interfax.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 12:19 PM

The article by DER SPIEGEL that Freda has mentioned is available in English:

Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?

Ulfkotte, the journalist with whom the story originated has a track record of publishing opinions and news that contradict the majority opinion. His usual targets are liberals. However, he's right. Sometimes. Let's hope not this time.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 12:36 PM

I find it amazing that nowhere in this thread has anyone mentioned the fact that the president of Iran has called for the destriction of Israel.

If you make a careful examination of this thread, Troll, you will see that most of the posts in it were put there long before the president of Iran made those comments.

As I recall, the final resolution passed by the UN Security Council prior to the invasion of Iraq (1411?) gave permission the use force against Saddam.

No it did not. In fact, it specifically forbade anyone to use force against Saddam, the United States included.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 08:25 AM

It's UNSC resolution 1441 using the words "all necessary means" and "serious consequences" which by some is read as Troll recalls.

Carol, which part of 1441 do you read as specifically forbade anyone to use force against Saddam, the United States included?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 05:43 PM

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

The Security Council:

10. Requests all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates...

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Both of these communicate the wishes of the UN Security Council. Number 10 says that the inspectors will be given full support of all member states. This part was violated when the US forced inspectors to leave Iraq so that it could invade.

In number 14, the UNSC tells member states that its decison is to continue to monitor the situation.

Nowhere in this resolution is there any language authorizing any member states to use force against Iraq. But items 10 and 14 specifically tell all member nations (including the US) what the UNSC expects of them.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:56 PM

The bottom line about Iran is:

They are going to press on with their nuclear program and we can't do a damned thing about it.

You can thank Bush for that. He has so weakened the U.S with this invasion and has spread our military so dangerously thin that we can do nothing more but stand there and whine. Military action is out of the question. We can't battle another insurgency--especially one right next door to the other one that is currently kicking our ass.

While Europe is making a lot of noise, they are toothless cowards who aren't going to actually lift a finger. They are waiting for America is step up and we can't.

Iran knows this and that is why they are thumbing their nose at us daring to do something. We can't and we won't and they know it.

Thank you, Mr. Bush. Before you leave office, we're going to show you how much we appreciate everything you've done for us.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:23 PM

So CarolC UN Security Council Resolution 1441

"specifically forbade anyone to use force against Saddam"

Now this is a fairly well defined, and carefully crafted document. Please produce the passages of that document that support your contention - They don't exist.

In tabling 1441 the US was perfectly clear on what THEY regarded as "serious consequences" - they parked 250,000 troops on Iraq's borders just to emphasise the point (That by the way is what got UNMOVIC Inspectors into Iraq - It had damn all to do with the largess or willingness on the part of Saddam Hussein) Saddam thought that he could bluff this one out - unfortunately he was in error. It is also unfortunate that Iraq Body Count didn't find it necessary to tally up the deaths in Iraq during Saddam's time in power - rough, very rough, estimates are between 154 and 282 deaths per day - That is per day since 1979 (24 years) just to put things into perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 12:17 AM

Teribus, see my 19 Jan 06 - 05:43 PM post.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 09:15 AM

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)... (from UNSC 1441)

authorizes member states... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (from UNSC 678)

The two paragraphs you quote, Carol, are an unconvincing support for the claim that that resolution "specifically forbade" use of force.

UNSC resolutions are rarely clearer than the two paragraphs I have quoted above. That has a reason: The interests are so divergent that the veto powers insist on a wording that can be read differently by interested parties. So there will never be one particular interpretation the only one possible. But to read Nowhere in this resolution is there any language authorizing any member states to use force against Iraq into resolution 1441 as the only possible interpretation is wishful thinking.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 03:19 PM

Wolfgang, please show me where, in that resolution, it authorizes anyone, including the US, to take any measures whatever except for allowing the inspectors to do their jobs, and for waiting for the UNSC to make it's next decision on the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 04:11 PM

Did a Google search on "Invasion Iran". Fascinating. You can read articles that will convince you that Iran MUST be dealt with ASAP by a full scale attack by the USA and/or Israel, including nukes if necessary...and articles that say the exact opposite...and articles that say it's too late already, and a total disaster looms in which millions will die by nuclear proliferation. They're all so very convincing, and they all present lots of "facts" and stuff. Like I said, fascinating...

I'm glad I'm not in Iran right now.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 02:07 PM

Carol, I'm glad you admit implicitely that your original formulation was wrong by adding now except for...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 03:30 PM

Well, it's for sure that the US did NOT have UN approval for the invasion. That's why Canada didn't go.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 03:25 PM

Another possible viewpoint on Iran...

from the AsiaTimes

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 06 - 03:43 PM

The "except for" part was implicit in my original foumulation, Wolfgang, so I do not implicitly (nor explicitly) admit that it was wrong. And the "except for" part implicit in my originial formulation did not include the use of force, even by the inspectors, so my later use of the term "except for" does not in any way contradict my original formulation.

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 08:17 AM

Carol,

I'm not in the business of guessing what posters may have meant or intended. I'm reading what they actually write.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: IRAN - WMD's or weapons of mass deception
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:23 AM

CNN, to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11, is going to be re-playing their original coverage of that day. Let's just hope that President Bush doesn't tune in and go, 'Oh my God, they've done it again!'