BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 May 06 - 01:23 PM

So, let me see...

Iran says it wants to destroy another nation, and that is ok...

The US refuses to rule out the use of force if diplomacy fails, and that is wrong....


NOW I understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 May 06 - 10:08 AM

Published on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 by the New York Times
Iran Urges United Nations to Oppose American 'Threats'
by Warren Hoge

UNITED NATIONS - Iran asked the United Nations on Monday to take a stand against American threats that it said included possible nuclear strikes on its territory and that were "in total contempt of international law." In a letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan, Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, pointed to recent comments by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on ways to halt Iran's nuclear program and to news reports of Pentagon planning for possible nuclear attacks on nuclear facilities in Iran.

He said the comments by the United States were "matters of extreme gravity that require an urgent, concerted and resolute response on the part of the United Nations, and particularly the Security Council."
Mr. Zarif also faulted the United Nations for remaining silent on "these illegal and inexcusable threats" and said the lack of action had "emboldened senior United States officials to go further and even consider the use of nuclear weapons as 'an option on the table.' "

American officials have said they are pursuing a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, but they have repeatedly said that all options, including military ones, are being considered. Iran says its nuclear program is only for producing energy, but the United States and its European allies contend that Iran is preparing to build weapons.

Mr. Bush, asked at the White House on April 18 if the United States was considering military action against Iran, said, "All options are on the table."

Two days later, Ms. Rice echoed the president in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. In his letter, Mr. Jarif made specific mention of both comments.

..

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 May 06 - 09:23 AM

Teribus,

I have not written that letter only linked to it so I'm not in a position to respond for the authors. But as I see it:

They are right to state that the support for a war from Europe will be close to nonexistent.
You see (in my eyes) the dichotomy war-useless talking when there are far more alternatives. The Mullahs (some of them) seem to be more rational than Ahmadinejad. There is a lot of internal dissatisfaction with the regime why stop that movement by a war?

The problem I have with the threat of force in this case is not a general problem I would have with waging war. I'm not a pacifist. I think it has not been thought through:
- will the outcome of a war prevent what it means to prevent (for a considerable time?
- are there not better methods to achieve the wished outcome (see above)?
- If one considers it likely that a war achieves what it means to, what are the negative consequences?

I'm afraid that the US government started the threats without a clear plan (the Bush administration doesn't look really thoughtful in their past actions) and that at some moment in time the dynamics and rhetorics of the situation will leave the US government with only the choice between war and losing face. They might then start a war that achieves its objective only for a quite short period, has a lot of negative consequences for the USA and other allies and threatens the long term security more than any Iranian WMDs could. Or they might paddle back and the next villain will openly laugh at them and their hugh arsenal of useless weapons.

In the new asymmetric warfare of the present century the USA have much less power than their superior arsenal seems to give them.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Leadfingers
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 10:21 AM

So 200 !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Leadfingers
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 10:21 AM

I hate to see threads stuck at 198 !!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 08:12 AM

well , not if we change in anyhow the road this matter is in .
Teribus I believe what ever I wanna believe my friend and nothing in this live suprise me anymore , ofcourse is this about the oil
has been from the start when Bush older went into Iraq, but he did a mistake then and that was to finish what he started .

I think Us would not be were they are now if they had finish that war.

about Nostradamus : many of the things that have happen in the history
has come true and what was to start in 1999 can start today or tomorrow
the human´s are the most evil being on this earth .

I am sorry but I have to say that the to make a terrorits you
have to be one , and Mr Bush junior is a terrorist the highest
of them all.Change the man on Bridge people otherwise US
and the rest of the Western world is going to be the shit for a long time . Get him out of the Whitehouse .............but maybe you just get another ( Bush ) ?


Iceland is not going to be one of the Nation who will support
a attack on Iran , our priminester told us that in news the other
day , sorry but we did a huge mistake by support the attack
on Iraq.

Usally I don´t talk or think about polotik but this time I am worry
and we should all be,
I coult be wrong about everything I wrote, but this is how I feel .

well my friends I am not gonna say or write anything more about this
I have other things on my mind, like music and my familiy .

All the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 06:36 AM

Oh Skarpi,

If you believe such twaddle:

According to Nostradamus, what he hinted at as being the Third World War originating in the middle east was supposed to have started in 1999 and ends in 2034 with the West as the victors. The world thereafter lives in peace until it's destruction sometime in 3473.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 06:25 AM

The Exit Plan
An Exit Plan that brings stability and democracy to Iraq, brings our troops home immediately by replacing them with a coalition from Russia, China, France etc., none of whom are as hated as the "demon/Satan" Americans.

OK can the author of this "Exit Plan" explain why one set of foreign occupiers would be more welcome than another? Can the author of this "Exit Plan" provide examples where any of his suggested replacements have EVER worked in concert with one another as a "coalition" and achieved anything?

Now let's see,of the potential participants proposed, at the momen:
-        Russia is having a hard enough job reconstructing herself and due to potential problems with muslin populations within her own borders would not want to get involved.
-        China is too busy making money and juggling state capitalism while trying to maintain its credentials as a Socialist Communist State.
-        France just cannot afford it financially or politically.

All we have to do to get these countries to take over the reconstruction of Iraq is give them back the oil leases Bush stole from them when Bush invaded. (Russia had the West Qurnah oil field, China had the Rumaylah Reserve, and France had two of Iraq's largest fields, the Majnoon and Nahr Bin Omar.)

OK can the author of this "Exit Plan" detail what oil leases were stolen. Current records show the following leases are still operative:
West Qurna Phase 2 - Lukoil – Russian
Majnoon - Total – French
Bin Umar - Zarubezhneft – Russian
Nasiriya - Eni – Italian and Repsol – Spanish
Halfaya - BHP – Australian and a South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip – Italian
Ratawi - Shell – Netherlands
Tuba - ONGC – Indian and Sonatrach – BVI
Suba-Luhais - Slavneft – Russian
Gharaf - TPAO – Turkey and Japex – Japan
Al-Ahdab - CNPC – Chinese
Amara – PetroVietnam – Vietnam
Western Desert – Consortium comprising, ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz – Russian and Tatneft – Russian.
Tawke 1 – DNO – Norwegian.

Can the Author of this "Exit Plan" detail what oil in Iraq is owned by Halliburton?

Iraq's oil has always been Iraq's and that continues to be the case today, it cannot be taken, it cannot be given away, ALL oil and natural gas in Iraq is owned by the Iraq National Oil Company, those detailed above extract it under licence. The premise that the newly elected Government of Iraq would divest the country of it's natural resources which form the sole basis for their country's economy and give them to foreign powers who would "rush to take over and get the oil" is patently ridiculous.

The Governments of Russia, China and France would not touch this proposal with a bargepole

Now this bit of the Article is priceless:

"This Plan is a Godsend to the Iraqi people and a Godsend to our Troops, at the same time it strengthens America's position as the world's premier military superpower, and covers America with honor and the respect of the entire world as she resumes her position of moral authority – the premier moral superpower in the world -- ushering in a new era of international cooperation essential to successfully defeating terrorism in every corner of the world"

The Author of the "Exit Plan" doesn't elaborate on any of these statements and clearly hasn't thought through just exactly how implantation of this "Exit Plan" would be viewed by the various interested parties:
-        It definitely would not be a godsend to the people of Iraq
-        It definitely would not be a godsend to the armed forces of the United States of America
-        It would seriously weaken if not totally destroy America's position as the world's premier military superpower
-        Implementation of this "Exit Plan" would cover no-one with honour or respect, and irrespective of what the Author of this article states, there are many in this world who are totally convinced that the United States of America has no position to resume, and that the United States of America has never held a position of moral authority. I actually suspect the Author of this article is counted amongst this number going by remarks made later in the article.

Two reasons are given as to why the Coalition Invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (A Coalition of more countries than were involved in the 1991 campaign that ousted Saddam from Kuwait) cannot suceed:

Reason 1 – Oil
Well that cannot be sustained, as Iraq still owns the oil, those who previously had oil concessions in Iraq still have them, no major US oil company has been given any oil, Halliburton does not own or has not taken any Iraqi oil. And where does the United States of America get it's oil from (February 2006 figures):

Mexico 1.774 million barrels per day
Canada 1.7 million barrels per day
Saudi Arabia 1.4 million barrels per day
Nigeria 1.3 million barrels per day
Venezuela 1.1 million barrels per day

Iraq comes way, way down the list with 444,000 barrels per day

Reason 2 - Profound – incredibly profound -- ignorance of the psychology, religion and spirituality of the Arab and Islamic Cultures.

The supporters of current American Policy are asked two questions by the Author of the "Exit Plan".

Question 1 - Can you name one goal – just one – that staying and/or escalating in Iraq achieves that isn't better achieved – far better and far quicker – by this Exit Plan that gives back the oil to the Iraqis to lease to whomever the choose, and replaces our troops with a plethora of international forces and money immediately – something staying or escalating can never do?

For a start the Author ignores the fact that foreign troops comprising the Multi-National Force currently present in Iraq are there at the specific request of the former Iraq Transitional Government and remain there at the specific request of the newly elected members of the Iraqi Parliament. The MNF troops are present in Iraq under duly sanctioned UN Mandate. Now France, Russia and China are all UN members, all of whom have oil companies far more involved in the affairs of Iraq than any US or British Oil Company, has anybody heard anything that remotely indicates that if the MNF troops pulled out they would replaced with, "…a plethora of international forces and money immediately". Wishfull thinking of the highest order that defies logic and reality. As in the case of Darfur – there would be NO takers from the international community willing to step in.

As for goals, I can think of the following, Leiberman came up with quite a few more after his visit:

-        By staying the newly elected members of the Iraqi Parliament are given a breathing space to get up and running.
-        Iraq is no longer a sponsor of terrorist organizations, if any doubt that, take a look at the marked drop in terrorist attacks on Israel post March 2003, compared to the three previous years.
-        The unresolved matters relating to Iraq's WMD programmes detailed by UNSCOM in their Report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 have now been settled.

Here is what the Author of the "Exit Plan" thinks it would achieve IMMEDIATELY:

•        Immediately brings real peace, stability and democracy to Iraq in a way the hated "Satan" American occupiers will never be able to do.

Absolutely no grounds given as to why this would be the case. Most experts, especially those opposed to the intervention, would disagree with this prediction. Most believe that if the MNF troops left Iraq would descend into civil war, that would seriously destabilise the entire region.

•        Stops the daily slaughter and permanent crippling of our beautiful American troops who are human beings, not just numbers -- and who had a future, and their orphaned children had a future.

No it would not, the US, US interests and US citizens world-wide would still remain as much targets as they were throughout the 1980's and 1990's.

•        Immediately replace all American troops in Iraq with coalition forces, and cancel the activation of the 120,000 Reservists, National Guard and regular Army troops, and instead immediately send to Afghanistan 40,000 troops led by 15,000 American Special Operation Forces and 25,000 coalition forces to restore the all-out aggressive war on terrorism that Bush abandoned to invade Iraq for oil.

What coalition forces? I have not heard of one single country that would be prepared to intervene in Iraq, even at the specific request of the Iraqi Government or the United Nations. No mention of the time it would take to put this "plethora of the unwilling but financially motivated" together, or how the difficulties would be overcome in order that this hotchpotch could operate effectively together. Remember the Author of the "Exit Plan" described these achievements as being of IMMEDIATE effect – Hardly.

•        By sending 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, we enormously increase our ability to win the war on terrorism by refocusing our military strength and intelligence on the real war on terrorism, starting in Afghanistan, which has become a virtual state of anarchy since we broke all of our promises and abandoned it, allowing the drug warlords to take over the north, the Taliban back in control in the south, openly running training camps for Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

True, but it would be far better to send troops and commanders who have some idea of the concept and application of a "Hearts and Minds" policy. This rules out US troops who have never bothered to get to grips with understanding what this was about.

•         By replacing our troops under this Plan, instead of making America weaker, we make America an even stronger and more powerful military superpower because we will also restore America to its position as a "superpower" of moral authority.

As stated previously there are many in this world who have never seen the United States of America as having any moral authority, who view the United States of America as being primarily concerned with self-interest before all other considerations. The US is not alone in this respect, throughout history the worst offender in this respect was France - What is right for France is right for the World.

•        Create a new Morality-driven Foreign Policy that brings an end to the unprecedented chaos and instability destroying the world today.

I do not believe that any one country on this planet's foreign policy, morality driven, or otherwise, is solely responsible for the, "unprecedented chaos and instability destroying the world today". To suggest that just by the USA adopting such a stance the ills of the world would be cured IMMEDIATELY, is a ridiculous assertion.

•         By giving back the oil and renouncing The Bush Doctrine of regional domination, we instantly create a far more effective pro-American international community of nations we desperately need to win the war on worldwide Terrorism, poverty and disease.

Eh – No oil was taken, so what is there to give back?

•        Take a giant step towards bringing peace and stability to the Middle East.

Following the Author's "Exit Plan" the exact opposite would be the case.

•        By spending the $160 billion Iraq has already cost and at least another $200 billion Iraq will cost in the next two years – and like Vietnam, that's just the beginning of what our occupation will cost -- we can immediately rebuild our schools, our hospitals, our power grids, our entire economy at home, saving the lives of tens of millions of suffering Americans and their children.

Were this true, why was it not done before March 2003, before September 2001, before December 1998, before January 1991? The Government of the United States of America and the individual State Governments have always had the means to do all this, why hasn't it been done before? Why is it down to the current Administration to do it, when it's predecessors have not?

The Second Question:
This question goes to the heart and soul of the motivations of what these people are fighting for, and it has nothing to do with the absurd White House spin that these are people loyal to Hussein, criminals, foreigners, etc. Only when you can answer this two-part question, will you begin to remotely understand what is going on in Iraq.

1.        Can you find one beautiful 27-year-old woman lawyer in Washington or any city in the US, with a glorious future in front of her, who will strap explosives to her body and blow herself up in some bus or in some restaurant for the cause she believes in?

2.            Do you understand – and can you explain – why a 27-year-old woman who has worked so hard all her life to become a lawyer, and has spent her whole life helping people, would gladly end it and give up her future and her family because killing the Americans and the Jews is so much more important than her life?   Can you explain what is this Supreme Value that motivates her to kill even innocent people, something she would never otherwise do?

The answer to both may rest in something mentioned earlier in this article:

"every child is taught from their first days in school (that America) is the "Great Satan"

To the first part in particular, I would rather hope that the answer would be none. I would rather hope that that particular woman along with her fellow citizens was far too intelligent to go along with that sort of means of achieving her ends. Suicide bombing has been around for a long time now. It has never been particularly effective or successful. As the late King Hussain of Jordan's brother commented at the height of the Abu-Graib revelations, "In any town market place throughout the Arab nations if you were to set up two stalls, one for enlisting to fight in the jihad against the United States and the other for visa's to enter the United States of America to live and work there. For every person in line at the first stall, there would be hundreds if not thousands at the second."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 10:02 PM

Quite possibly, skarpi, it is. Regardless of Nostradamus. It's mostly about oil, and that oil is absolutely vital to the interests of America, Russia, China, and every other industrial nation. This is the kind of thing that major wars end up being fought over.

Of course, we could all agree to share the oil in an equal manner, couldn't we...?

But since when has there been the will among major powers to do something as sane and agreeable as that when they saw a chance to just take what they wanted by force? Since never.

The USA, at present, is just taking what it wants, and positioning itself to take more. That is what makes a major war very likely. It will not be a war about terrorism or democracy. It will be a war about who gets to control the oil. Other issues are brought forward as red herrings to fool the public into supporting national policy and volunteering their children's lives on the front lines, but it's about oil.

Here's an interesting link which proposes an "exit strategy" for the USA in Iraq. Very interesting. The Billy Jack movies were terrible, but Tom Laughlin's ideas for an exit strategy in Iraq make a great deal of sense. Read it and see...

http://www.billyjack.com/index.php?menuID=Page&pid=39

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM

ahh have you all looked in the book - Nostradamus ?
" it will start in the middle east where as he saw it a prince
rules over his country and that country will start the WW3 "
they will fight against the vestern nations and russia
will fight with them and they will go into the middle eroupe
there they will be stopped and in the end the russian army
will fight against them to . this is what i remember what
in the book " Nostradamus " this may not be qoted right
word by word but as I said I remember this .

So is this the first step into WW3 ????

I am just wandering ,..................

All the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 07:30 AM

sorry about the several typo errors in the above posting
...the shah's secret police cinducted a reign of terror and torture against the iranian people not iraqi!!
The US encouraged the Iraqis to attack Iran in 1981.
I hope that clarifies my previous posting!!!
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 04:44 AM

Who is the terrorist?
The USA has been actively involved in acts of terrorism in the Middle East for decades.It plotted to bring down the Mossadeg govt in Iran in 1953 and installed the shah in his place.Why?Oil!
The shah then set up the Savak secret police ,trained by the west and Israel to conduct a reign of torture and terror against the Iraqi people which was to last until his downfall in 1978.
Amnesty International published reports which stated that the shah's regime was among the worst in terms of torture and human rights abuses the world has seen.
This US malignant interference in Iran led to the ride of the fundamentalists.
To deal with the fundamentalists the US to attack Iran in 1981.The US supplied Iraq with finance,weapons,machine tools,intelligence and training.Dick Chenney was a welcome visitor to Bagdhad at this time.The war ended with a million war dead and both countries in economic exhaustion.
One Iranian civil airliner was shoot down out of the sky by a US destroyer with a huge loss of life.
Reports have been published recently that the US has been financing opposition groups ....imagine if Iran had been found to fund the democratic party in the USA !
Oil is the basis of US policy in the Middle East and it has used its huge wealth,economic power and military strength to trample on democratic rights and national rights in order to secure this oil for the US energy companies.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM

My apologies CarolC you are of course correct - here is what President Jacques Chirac did say:

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and fitting response on our part. This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind. Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction. The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power. . . . All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit"

All of the above from the mouth of President Jacques Chirac of France. Clearly stated in Paris, on the 19th January. He also went on to say:

"....that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism. President Chirac says France's nuclear arsenal could deliver a targeted strike. The French president said his country had reduced the number of nuclear warheads on some missiles deployed on France's four nuclear submarines in order to target specific points rather than risk wide-scale destruction. At the same time, he condemned "the temptation by certain countries to obtain nuclear capabilities in contravention of treaties." (i.e. Iran)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:58 PM

While disturbed about unconfirmed reports that the current US Administration "may be" actively planning to launch military strikes against possible nuclear weapons facilities in Iran, not one of the above voices the slightest concern regarding the declared intent on the part of France to respond to any attack involving the use of WMD with nuclear weapons on what ever nations France believes to be involved.

You have quoted "France" as saying it would respond to an attack involving WMD that has already occurred. What the US is talking about doing is attacking another country before the government of that other country has made any attacks (using WMD) on anyone. This is a huge difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM

To Wolfgang and to Madeleine Albright of the United States, Joschka Fischer of Germany, Jozias van Aartsen of the Netherlands, Bronislaw Geremek of Poland, Hubert Védrine of France and Lydia Polfer of Luxembourg. Based upon the article linked to "Talk to Iran, President Bush" I would ask the following:

1. Iran has been engaged in dialogue and negotiation now for quite a number of years - What has been the result? What would be the anticipated result of further dialogue? Why would this be considered any more likely to succeed than any past negotiation?

2. While disturbed about unconfirmed reports that the current US Administration "may be" actively planning to launch military strikes against possible nuclear weapons facilities in Iran, not one of the above voices the slightest concern regarding the declared intent on the part of France to respond to any attack involving the use of WMD with nuclear weapons on what ever nations France believes to be involved. Can anyone on this forum explain why one approach is OK and that the one reportedly adopted by the US is so completely beyond the pale?

3. With regard to Iraq, the former Foreign Ministers ignore the fact that it was entirely in the hands of Saddam Hussein what happened.

4. In their acceptance of Iran's legitimate right to pursue civilian nuclear power with appropriate international safeguards. Can this group of former Foreign Ministers explain why they believe that Iran having developed much of their nuclear programme in secret would pay the slightest attention to what they believe to be the "appropriate international safeguards". If what Iran says is true, why do they need P2 centrifuges as opposed to the P1 type normally used in the manufacture of nuclear fuel? Why are they investigating the design of nuclear warheads? Why are they designing long range missiles to carry nuclear warheads? All these are questions that Mohammed El Baradei the head of the IAEA has raised as a direct result of what HIS inspectors have discovered.

5. While the threatening and outrageous rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has evoked understandable concern in Israel and other countries about Iranian intentions. Israel also has legitimate security concerns about Tehran's growing military capabilities. The former Foreign Ministers see their way forward in castigating the current US Administration for what it is not doing, while quietly choosing to ignore the root cause of a very real and growing threat. To the Head of State of a sovereign country and a member of the United Nations, who has openly and publicly threatened another sovereign state and member of the United Nation with annihilation what the entire body of that organisation (UN) should be saying very clearly to Iran is this, "By all means proceed with, and advance, your programme to obtain nuclear power for the generation of electricity. Do so in such a way that your progress and development is completely transparent in accordance with the Treaty to which your country is a signatory. Make any attempt to produce a nuclear weapon, then the world as a body will ensure that Iran as a nation ceases to exist." That would be a credible threat that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the members of the Iranian Ruling Council would have to pay attention to. The world has already tried to bribe and buy their way out of this crisis and failed spectacularly, high time now for extremely plain speaking, unfortunately everyone must be singing in unison on this and that is unlikely to happen.

6. To attribute the current international security environment to the actions of the USA and the UK, plus the 38 other countries that acted in 2003, is patently ridiculous. Muslim terrorists have been conducting attacks on an international basis for the past 34 years, it did not start as retaliation for America's response to 911.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 09:45 AM

Open letter to Bush regarding Iran by several former foreign ministers

...find disturbing the reports that the Bush administration may be actively planning to launch military strikes soon against possible nuclear weapons facilities in Iran.

Such reports, though denied by the administration, raise alarms nevertheless. Similar reports, and similar denials, preceded the administration's decision in 2003 to invade Iraq.

...a unilateral use of force by Washington would find little support within Europe

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:23 PM

Oh, goody. More bitching and more opinions and more statistics. More efforts to "win" the argument. You know what? If we all wait a little while, we will find out the answers to all this speculation, won't we?

Hopefully, anyway. ;-) They ARE still arguing about who shot John Kennedy...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:16 PM

Stringsinger,

Top five oil exporters to the US are:
Mexico 1.774 million barrels per day
Canada 1.7 million barrels per day
Saudi Arabia 1.4 million barrels per day
Nigeria 1.3 million barrels per day
Venezuela 1.1 million barrels per day

Iraq comes way, way down the list with 444,000 barrels per day

Now what was that "agenda" again? And I cannot for the life of me see how pipelines that do not exist, and who nobody seems to want to build enter the picture at all, let alone serve as an example of how the US sets out to destroy countries to acquire their assets and natural resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:07 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus - PM
Teribus,

The pipelines are an agenda. It's not crap. How else can the US get a "fix" on its "habit"? If you don't believe the Bushies have an oil agenda, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Remember that Bush is first and foremost a failed oilman. He bankrupted his business in Texas and made a lot of money from it. It's called "corporate crime" in my book.

But the most potent export that Afghanistan has now is not just oil but its poppy fields.

Factual matters have nothing to do with going to war for the Bushies.
They are looking to Armageddon to solve their problems. The New World Order is not a "pipedream" but a specific political orientation.

Frank Hamilton



Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:22 PM

CarolC - 16 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

"They have no problem with destroying a country for oil,.....Just look at Afghanistan (where we have an oil agenda in the form of pipelines)."

Really CarolC? what pipelines are they - quick give Don F a shake and he can tell us all about the TAP Pipeline that the US has absolutely sod all to do with and which is as far away from being constructed now as it was twenty years ago. But according to CarolC the US "has an agenda" - Utter crap, if you are going to peddle fairytales at least try and hang them on a framework with a bit of credibility

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 07:46 AM

The biggest threat to the world and the thousands of innocents that they have been sent to their doom, comes from the USA. A fact beyond dispute.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 07:36 AM

A link to a comment in the GUARDIAN:
Iran does pose a threat in every way Iraq did not

That the Iraqi peril was a phantom, all but the pro-war diehards now concede....an alarming picture: a state galloping towards a nuclear bomb, led by a messianist bent on destroying a nearby nation. Undenied, too, are Iran's links with terrorist organisations beyond its borders. For every way in which Iraq did not pose a threat, there is one in which Iran does.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: gnu
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:19 PM

Do you suppose Garge will employ a nuke(s) in Iran to "nip that problem neatly in the bud" and, at the same time, to demonstrate to N. Korea that they are next, if..... ?

BTW. I ain't SAYIN nothin, so don't jump to conclusions or on my back... I'm just askin.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:50 PM

Very prescient.


Alternative (and in my opinion, better) version...

A majority of Israelis decide they've had enough of empire building and force their government to remove occupying forces and settlements from the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. As a result of popular pressure, the government recognizes the Palestinian people, and sits down with their democratically elected representatives and together they establish a mutually acceptable border between Israel and the newly formed Independent Palestine.

New initiatives in cooperation between the two countries results in an economic boom for both countries, and they experience a cultural and entrepreneurial renaissance, which spreads throughout the whole Middle East. Even countries like Iran cannot withstand the tide of change. As a result of the Iranian government no longer being able to recruit willing fighters in the name of liberating Palestine from the Western invaders, it is forced to adopt a new strategy.

Following China's example, it begins to institute a liberalization of its policies, with a resulting dimishment of power of the Mullahs in favor of policy makers who have the expertise to take advantage of the new economic climate in the region.

Western oil-driven countries, as a result of market pressures making oil too expensive, and through innovations in technology, have established a non-petroleum dependent energy economy, resulting in a loss of interest in dominating and controling the oil producing parts of the world.

Peace ensues.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:14 PM

The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009 (link to a GUARDIAN article)

May 7 2009 will surely go down in history alongside September 11 2001. "5/7", as it inevitably became known, saw massive suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on the remaining western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded. The attacks, which included the explosion of a so-called dirty bomb in London, were orchestrated by a Tehran-based organisation for "martyrdom-seeking operations" established in 2004. "5/7" was the Islamic Republic of Iran's response to the bombing of its nuclear facilities, which President Hillary Clinton had ordered in March 2009.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:46 AM

Don't ask him, ask George, or perhaps better yet, the NYT?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:31 AM

Foolestroupe,

Are you answering a question, or trying to clarify a point raised?

You actually quoting me quoting a post of Donuel's seems to do neither.

My question to Donuel is why would there be any US Troops regular, or otherwise in Iran at present, it would appear that we only have the NYT's say so.

Now judging from past experience, should I quote as source material the NYT it is instantly dismissed as a biased right wing rag in the pocket of the current US Administration (It's not of course but that is the line taken) How ever when it is quoted by the anti-war, anti-Bush, left as a source of information it becomes the totally objective, impeccable, fount of all knowledge, completely and utterly beyond reproach.

The munitions requiring target illumination cost approximately $45,000 per shot and require the following circumstances to exist before they can work:
- Target illumination teams in place with their equipment
- Good weather or at least no overcast

JDAM's cost approximately $10,000 per shot and require none of the above being an all-weather 'blind' system. So I ask again, what are all those US Regular Troops doing in Iran Donuel?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 08:12 PM

From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 10:05 AM

"The NYT says that we are now already in Iran with regular Army troops whose job it is to paint Iranian targets with lasers for our nuclear weapons." (Donuel - 10 Apr 06 - 08:28 AM)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 10:07 AM

Has the USA surreptiously invaded Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:43 AM

So why has the USA surreptiously invaded Iran? An Act of War, you see...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 10:05 AM

"The NYT says that we are now already in Iran with regular Army troops whose job it is to paint Iranian targets with lasers for our nuclear weapons." (Donuel - 10 Apr 06 - 08:28 AM)

Did the NYT explain why Donuel? I would rather of thought that it would, because that is a damned expensive way of doing things. Go and read up on JDAMS, does exactly the same thing at a quarter of the cost and does not rely on having to have anybody on the ground "painting" the target.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 08:04 AM

Mr T is potentially British, as he claimed to have worked with the SAS... :-)

Of course Australia also has a SAS... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:39 AM

Ok. I'll conceed on that point.

However, there's still this:

"Bush even had the gall to declare, "We should never execute anyone who is mentally retarded." Of course, as governor of Texas, Bush opposed legislation that banned executions of the mentally handicapped. He signed off on the execution of six prisoners with IQs below 70 (the general threshold measuring mental retardation) -- one-sixth of the number of mentally handicapped individuals who have been executed since 1976."

(from my earlier link)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:10 AM

"Oh no, they were minors. They couldn't vote or drink alcohol (legally). They were minors in every legal sense of the word (legal according to US laws). But they were minors who got the death penalty."

Sorry CarolC according to the laws of the State of Texas the age of criminal responsibility at the point where the courts treat you as an adult is from the point you reach your 17th birthday. The Supreme Court rulings of 1988 and 1989 also state that the execution of people aged 16 or 17 at the time of the crime was not contrary to the US Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 01:41 AM

Oh no, they were minors. They couldn't vote or drink alcohol (legally). They were minors in every legal sense of the word (legal according to US laws). But they were minors who got the death penalty.

Under Texas law the governor can issue a 30-day stay of execution by himself but can only commute a sentence if the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it.

So what? This means nothing in terms of your point and in terms of question of whether or not "human rights" mean anything to Bush other than for purposes of political expediency. If he has the power to influence the board (and it is proven that he did have that power), and if he doesn't make any effort to know the relevant facts of each execution before it takes place, and if he signs off on the executions anyway, and if the executions are a miscarriage of justice, and he doesn't make the attempt to get a recommendation from the board to commute, he bears ultimate responsibility. He is, in the cases that come before him for his signature, the final artiber.

On 28th February 2005 the US Supreme Court changed it's mind and shifted the height of the bar to 18 years old, better had they banned it altogether, but at least they appear to be moving in the right direction. It was an indictment of nothing, to say so was just fanciful journalistic rubbish, and the Supreme Court of the United States of American does not give a fig about International Law, nor should it. With the state the legal system of the US is in they have enough on their plate just looking at their own back yard.

If you want to quarrel with the use of the word "indictment", I don't have any problem with that. That changes nothing, however.

No calls of condemnation with regard to the other states where convicted prisoners under the age of 18 have been executed.

That's not the subject of this discussion. Yes, I do condemn it. I condemn all cases of capital punishment for the same reason you do. But this is not a discussion of capital punishment. It's a discussion of George Bush's track record with regard to human rights.

Nice obfuscatory attempt, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 01:07 AM

It would appear CarolC that I had answered the question in my post of 09 Apr 06 - 06:37 AM

Under Texas law the governor can issue a 30-day stay of execution by himself but can only commute a sentence if the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it.

That is the fact of the matter, the rest of what you quoted on this point is merely opinion. In Texas juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 16, looks as though the laws of the State of Texas have to be changed, but at the time it would appear that the Governor and the legal process was working within the law. But please note CarolC that according to the law at no time ever has George W Bush, as governor of Texas, overseen the execution of people who were minors at the time of their crimes ( As you stated in your post of 06 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM ).

No calls of condemnation with regard to the other states where convicted prisoners under the age of 18 have been executed.

Your second point with regard to the mandate of the Supreme Court:

In 1988 and 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that the execution of people who were under 16 at the time of the crime was contrary to the US Constitution but that the execution of people aged 16 or 17 at the time of the crime was not.

On 28th February 2005 the US Supreme Court changed it's mind and shifted the height of the bar to 18 years old, better had they banned it altogether, but at least they appear to be moving in the right direction. It was an indictment of nothing, to say so was just fanciful journalistic rubbish, and the Supreme Court of the United States of American does not give a fig about International Law, nor should it. With the state the legal system of the US is in they have enough on their plate just looking at their own back yard.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:30 PM

(thnx, guys)


Ahem...

First of all, this is what Bush was empowered to do as governor of Texas -

"To distance himself from his legal and moral responsibility for executions, Bush often cited a Texas statute that says a governor may do nothing more than grant a thirty-day reprieve to an inmate unless the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has recommended a broader grant of clemency. But any time he wanted to, Bush could have commuted a sentence or stopped an execution. By the end of his governorship Bush had appointed all eighteen members of the board of pardons. He could easily have ordered a thirty-day reprieve and gotten word to the board that he had doubts about the fairness of a case and wanted an investigation and hearings. But the Texas pardons board has been a farce. In my home state the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Paroles meets and holds hearings. True, they routinely deny clemency, but they at least give the appearance of being a real, working board. The full Texas pardons board never meets to consider a death sentence. A few of them talk to one another on the phone. Sometimes. No one knows whether the clemency appeals are even read. As governor, Bush did nothing to reform the board's procedures.

In the Henry Lee Lucas case in 1998, Bush showed where the real power lay. He intervened with the Texas pardons board before they had a chance to make a recommendation, and after his intervention, the board handed him the decision he wanted: a 17�1 vote for commutation of Lucas's death sentence. The Henry Lee Lucas case gained national attention when it came to light that Lucas had been condemned to death for a Texas murder he couldn't possibly have committed, since he wasn't in the state at the time. Additionally, it was clear that Lucas would never be a threat to society because he was already serving six life sentences for other murders, which he may or may not have committed, since on a fairly regular basis he confessed falsely to hundreds of murders. Bush pointed out that jurors at his trial "did not know" certain facts that later came to light."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670


Second, the Supreme Court has a different mandate. They are charged with interpreting law and the US Constitution (and establishing precedent). If they have determined that the case before them is not a violation of the Constitution, they decide against the one seeking redress through that court. In the case of the juvenile death penalty, their earlier decisions reflected the science that was known at the time of those decisions. Their later decision; that juvenile death penalties are unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, is a reflection of new science and new attitudes that are, in part, based on that science...

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,994126,00.html

"...What Giedd's long-term studies have documented is that there is a second wave of proliferation and pruning that occurs later in childhood and that the final, critical part of this second wave, affecting some of our highest mental functions, occurs in the late teens. Unlike the prenatal changes, this neural waxing and waning alters not the number of nerve cells but the number of connections, or synapses, between them. When a child is between the ages of 6 and 12, the neurons grow bushier, each making dozens of connections to other neurons and creating new pathways for nerve signals.

The thickening of all this gray matter--the neurons and their branchlike dendrites--peaks when girls are about 11 and boys 12 1/2, at which point a serious round of pruning is under way. Gray matter is thinned out at a rate of about 0.7% a year, tapering off in the early 20s. At the same time, the brain's white matter thickens. The white matter is composed of fatty myelin sheaths that encase axons and, like insulation on a wire, make nerve-signal transmissions faster and more efficient. With each passing year (maybe even up to age 40) myelin sheaths thicken, much like tree rings. During adolescence, says Giedd, summing up the process, "you get fewer but faster connections in the brain." The brain becomes a more efficient machine, but there is a trade-off: it is probably losing some of its raw potential for learning and its ability to recover from trauma.

..."Scientists and the general public had attributed the bad decisions teens make to hormonal changes," says Elizabeth Sowell, a UCLA neuroscientist who has done seminal MRI work on the developing brain. "But once we started mapping where and when the brain changes were happening, we could say, Aha, the part of the brain that makes teenagers more responsible is not finished maturing yet."

...In light of what has been learned, it seems almost arbitrary that our society has decided that a young American is ready to drive a car at 16, to vote and serve in the Army at 18 and to drink alcohol at 21. Giedd says the best estimate for when the brain is truly mature is 25, the age at which you can rent a car. "Avis must have some pretty sophisticated neuroscientists," he jokes. Now that we have scientific evidence that the adolescent brain is not quite up to scratch, some legal scholars and child advocates argue that minors should never be tried as adults and should be spared the death penalty. Last year, in an official statement that summarized current research on the adolescent brain, the American Bar Association urged all state legislatures to ban the death penalty for juveniles. "For social and biological reasons," it read, "teens have increased difficulty making mature decisions and understanding the consequences of their actions.""


Third -

Also not on single word from you in your post regarding the victims of these murderers, nor for their families and loved ones.

Wolfgang asked specifically whether or not human rights has ever "meant anything else to Bush except a good excuse for an action he had already planned for a completely different reason". And I gave my answer to that question.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:40 PM

"Plus, though I ain't seen the T, I'm sure that CarolC is a lot easier on the eyes... "

Something I can agree with Bobert on...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 08:28 AM

The NYT says that we are now already in Iran with regular Army troops whose job it is to paint Iranian targets with lasers for our nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:24 AM

Why am I against the death penalty?

Simple, because if the legal system gets it wrong you can correct the mistake. With the death penalty you can't, as in the case of Timothy Evans.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 07:43 PM

Hmmmmmmm? Executing folks who most likely, but not always, guilty is something that T-Bird is against yet droppin' bombs on innocent kids, women and old folks don't seem to bother him much???

I must have missed a couple things here...

Nevermind... Now bacl to the T-CarolC cat 'n mouse game... My money is on CarolC... Plus, though I ain't seen the T, I'm sure that CarolC is a lot easier on the eyes...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM

On the subject of a US attack on Iran - here is some recent discussion on this issue in the Washington Post...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM

And why are you against the death penalty, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 01:43 PM

CarolC, coming from a country that abolished the Death Penalty quite a long time ago I am against the Death Penalty and have been since first hearing a song called "The Ballad of Timothy Evans". I think I was about fifteen years old at the time as I said a long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 01:19 PM

This is not in answer to your question (that will come later), but what have you to say on the subject of executing the mentally handicapped, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 06:37 AM

"Under Texas law the governor can issue a 30-day stay of execution by himself but can only commute a sentence if the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it"

Most death penalty states that specify a minimum age for the death penalty set the minimum at age 18, but there are exceptions.

Death Penalty States where there is no specified minimum age:
Arizona; Idaho; Louisianna; Montana; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; South Dakota.

Death Penalty States where age is set as being 16 years or younger:
Alabama; Arkansas (14 years); Delaware; Federal (Military); Florida; Indiana; Kentucky; Mississippi; Missouri; Nevada; Oklahoma; Utah (14 years); Virginia (14 years); Wyoming.

Death Penalty States where age is set at 17 years:
Georgia; New Hampshire; North Carolina; Texas.

Death Penalty States where age is set at 18 years:
California; Colorado; Connecticut; Federal (civilian); Illinois; Kansas; Maryland; Nebraska; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; Ohio; Oregon; Tennessee; Washington.

At year-end 2000, throughout the entire United States of America, 73 offenders were under sentence of death for under-18 crimes

Of the 73 offenders under sentence of death on December 31, 2000, for crimes committed at age 17 or younger, 55 were age 17 at the time of their offense and the remaining 18 were 16.

Nearly half of these offenders (33 of 73) were not juveniles at the time of their offense—they were legally adults because they were older than their state's upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction.

The majority of these (26 of 33) were 17-year-olds from Texas, where original juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 16.

International Convention on Civil and Political Rights:
The USA, ratified the ICCPR in 1992 with a reservation reserving for itself the right to use the death penalty against child offenders.

In 1988 and 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that the execution of people who were under 16 at the time of the crime was contrary to the US Constitution but that the execution of people aged 16 or 17 at the time of the crime was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:50 PM

No, I'll answer it eventually, Teribus. But I thought I would give you ample opportunity to try to figure it out for yourself before I do.

Have you given up already?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 07:43 PM

Well, I sho nuff ain't read every post in this thread but back to the original question about Bush crankin' up yet another war...

Hey, he's allready losing the two wars he's started so what's one more... Hey, after a while who's counting???

Now back to whatever academic trap WylieCoyoteTeribus is setting for RoadRunnerCarolC...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 07:04 PM

Still worshipping at the stagnant pool, I see...

Man, if the Biblical Paul had had your fanatical zeal and persistence, Teribus, Rome would have either converted to Christianity a century or two sooner...or they'd have killed him. ;-)

Well, most likely the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 05:52 PM

You continue to dodge the question - noted.

By the way I am definitely not from the United States of America, nor am I from Texas, if there is indeed any difference, perceived or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 05:42 PM

Nope. That's not it. Try again.

BTW, you don't fool me with that "a foreigner like myself" language, since most Texans consider Texas to be a separate country from the US.