babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Let's Attack Iran!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Let's Attack Iran!
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 01 February 2005 06:23 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gwyne Dyer

What would really tip the whole area,,,


quote:
The talk is still macho, but the
performance is not there to back it up. What the US public gets for all
the taxes it pays on defence -- currently around $2,000 a year for every
American man, woman and child -- is armed forces that are barely capable of
holding down one middle-sized Arab country.

From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 February 2005 07:00 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is $2k per person just the upfront cost ?. Are they including the theft of American taxpayers futures when this regime has to borrow money to pay for military statism ?. Think of the long term social costs when millions can't afford to see a doctor on a regular basis or with millions of future taxpayers growing up in poverty.

[ 01 February 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Malcolm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8086

posted 02 February 2005 05:19 AM      Profile for Scott Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Consider the ramifications of attacking Iran given that they just got Iraq to hold elections and the Kingmaker al Sistani is an Iranian Shiite cleric.

America is now interdependent on arab public opinion. New gains will bring new loses of recent gains.

The only reason why America is still there in one peice is because Sistani has allowed them to consolidate power on a silver plate and hand it to him thoruhg the ballot box.

And who said Islam and democracy could not go together?

[ 02 February 2005: Message edited by: Scott Malcolm ]


From: Mission | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 02 February 2005 09:07 AM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scott Malcolm is right about al-Sistani, but I would add that the oilfields reverted to Iraq on election day, as well. Hence the new interest in Washington with Iran, which has been ramping up since last May, when al-Sistani forced Bush to hold elections.
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 February 2005 05:49 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Iraq will be home to the largest American foreign embassy in the world. John Negroponte has been tapped as lead organizer. For those who weren't aware, John did a bang-up job of aiding the Contra effort from his perch in Honduras and where right wing death squads butchered just a few Hondurans in relatively recent times.

May John's blood boil on the burning sands of Iraq for all eternity.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 02 February 2005 09:44 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Iraq will be home to the largest American foreign embassy in the world. John Negroponte has been tapped as lead organizer. For those who weren't aware, John did a bang-up job of aiding the Contra effort from his perch in Honduras and where right wing death squads butchered just a few Hondurans in relatively recent times.

May John's blood boil on the burning sands of Iraq for all eternity.


seconded


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Malcolm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8086

posted 02 February 2005 11:36 PM      Profile for Scott Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Iran/Contra affair aside let's get back to Iran.

A big embassy won't help when the whole army could not push through a constitution without an Iranian clerics approval.

And now that same cleric who played with them like a mouse caught by a cat has contol of the democracy they were forced to give him.

Any moves on Iran will see the expulsion of US troops by a democratically elected government of Iraq.

And exactly what can the US say to that.


From: Mission | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 03 February 2005 05:30 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They can say that the elected officials calling for US troop withdrawal have terrorist connections and are being questioned, and that sadly it appears that Iraq wasn't yet ready for democracy after all, given the evil terror-loving Islamists they voted in. It'll take some more "assistance" before they will be ready; it's unfortunate that this could take some time--say, until the oil runs out. But the US government remains committed to democracy in Iraq as soon as that won't threaten US profits in the area, um, that is, as soon as the Iraqi people have been properly educated in their democratic responsibilities.

Left wingers are too honest sometimes. The right can *always* come up with something to say. Not that Sistani or the Shi-ites in general would be sitting still while this happened, but that's realism talking. Pop quiz: In this administration, in the contest between hubris and realism, which has won most contests?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 03 February 2005 07:21 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
For reasons already pointed out on this thread, America may not chose a direct confrontation with Iran, but rather use Israel as a cat's paw to "pre-emptively" attack Iran's nuclear research sites. In the current political climate in the mid-east, and given that Iran's nuclear targets are reportedly often located in civilian neighbourhoods, such an attack by Israel might well precipitate the "war of civilizations" lurking in the background. Or worse. I am very eager to hear further analysis from Gwynn Dyer on this. He remains one of the most sensible, human and perceptive geo-political commentators around.

Brett


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
r-tist
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6663

posted 03 February 2005 09:23 PM      Profile for r-tist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by looney:
...America may not chose a direct confrontation with Iran, but rather use Israel as a cat's paw to "pre-emptively" attack Iran's nuclear research sites.

Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines
Peter Beaumont in London and Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Sunday October 12, 2003
quote:
Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.
(...)
According to Israeli and Bush administration officials interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, the sea-launch capability gives Israel the ability to target Iran more easily should the Iranians develop their own nuclear weapons.

So unfortunately, a pre-emptive strike against Iran does seem like a possibility. I'm sure the Bush administration will continue to spin Iran's nuclear capabilities to create fear, and wait until they can free up some troops from Iraq.

Added: Just found this article:
US jets 'flying over Iran to spot potential targets'
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday January 29, 2005
In the article, there are claims that the US is sending military planes into Iran's airspace, or possibly that the flights are being carried out by the Mujahedin-e-Khalq under US supervision. And then there's this:

quote:
The US military denied the reports. "We're not flying over frigging Iran," an official said, suggesting Tehran was making up the incidents to attract international sympathy.

[ 03 February 2005: Message edited by: r-tist ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Malcolm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8086

posted 03 February 2005 11:35 PM      Profile for Scott Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They can say that the elected officials calling for US troop withdrawal have terrorist connections and are being questioned, and that sadly it appears that Iraq wasn't yet ready for democracy after all

If America decides to repeal the democratic institutions that Iraqis participated in to change to an Iraqi government over the US occupation then the Shiites will "react" with overwhelming determination.

Now any interference is interferring with the ones the Iraqi people have chosen.

Not as easy as dealing with the ones you appoint as an occuppier or one who is a dictator.

The one thing the US military has demonstrated is that they have no concept on how to win a political battle in the Middle East.

Might is not right and will not win in the long run when faced with an adversary who derives power from a position of moral authority over a majority.


From: Mission | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Malcolm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8086

posted 04 February 2005 04:09 AM      Profile for Scott Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
* insert humourous note *

But Who is it Really?

Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran
1 hour, 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.

The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.

One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq (news - web sites) is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."

The White House said Iran is a concern and a threat that needs to be taken seriously. But it disputed the report by Hersh, who last year exposed the extent of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.


Reference

OR..........

Russia and Iran join efforts to struggle against invasion of UFOs
01/12/2005 18:44
Unidentified flying objects continue terrorizing the Eastern hemisphere of planet Earth. No one knows what to do with them, although it is obvious that something has to be done with the problem. Russia and Iran agreed to join efforts to study the mysterious phenomenon. The news may seem to be ridiculous at first sight, but it is actually a rather serious matter: UFOs pose a big threat to Iran in connection with its growing nuclear potential.

Reference

[ 04 February 2005: Message edited by: Scott Malcolm ]

[ 04 February 2005: Message edited by: Scott Malcolm ]


From: Mission | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 February 2005 05:00 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, it's rumored that Star Wars is really a covert weapons project to knock down UFO's in outer space. I think they'd actually have an easier time selling that whopper to taxpayers than half-truths and ridiculous lies.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Wing Zealot
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7405

posted 05 February 2005 10:01 PM      Profile for Left Wing Zealot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am totally and emotionally thrilled at the success of the recent Iraqi elections. Hopefully, this can be repeated in Iran soon. Israeli or American help might be needed.

First, the fact that people who literally take their lives into their hands when they vote had a higher turnout than Americans is sickening.

Putting that negative to one side, this shows that the world's most dangerous tinderbox, the Middle East, could presumably be transformed as successfully as Europe was after WW II from being a continual source of strife and war into being a source of productivity and accomplishment. It seems as if the world has been on this beneficent course for some time now.

The following countries and regions, previously characterized by tyranny, have chosen democratic courses over tyranny in recent years:

  1. Japan - 1945-50;
  2. West Germany - 1945-1950;
  3. Austria - 1955;
  4. Spain - 1974;
  5. Greece - 1975;
  6. Portugal - 1977-78;
  7. El Salvador - 1983;
  8. Nicaragua - 1988;
  9. South Korea - 1988;
  10. Poland - 1988;
  11. Hungary- 1988;
  12. Czechoslovakia (later split), East Germany, Romania - October - December 1989;
  13. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania - 1991;
  14. Russia - 1991;
  15. Mexico - 1999;
  16. Georgia - 2003;
  17. Afghanistan - 2004;
  18. Ukraine - 2005;
  19. Iraq - 2005.

Soon, maybe all countries of the world will take for granted voting for their leaders. What a great way to start the year.

[ 05 February 2005: Message edited by: Left Wing Zealot ]


From: Iqualit, Nunavut | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 February 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

In Poland, the former Gdansk Shipyard, point of origin of the Solidarity Trade Union, is closed and now a museum piece. Over 20% of the labor force is officially unemployed (Financial Times, Feb. 21/22, 2004) and has been for the better part of the decade. Another 30% is "employed" in marginal, low paid jobs (prostitution, contraband, drugs, flea markets, street venders and the underground economy). In Bulgaria, Rumania, Latvia, and East Germany similar or worse conditions prevail: The average real per capita growth over the past 15 years is far below the preceding 15 years under communism (especially if we include the benefits of health care, education, subsidized housing and pensions). Moreover economic inequalities have grown geometrically with 1% of the top income bracket controlling 80% of private assets and more than 50% of income while poverty levels exceed 50% or even higher. In the former USSR, especially south-central Asian republics like Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan, living standards have fallen by 80%, almost one fourth of the population has out-migrated or become destitute and industries, public treasuries and energy sources have been pillaged. The scientific, health and educational systems have been all but destroyed. In Armenia, the number of scientific researchers declined from 20,000 in 1990 to 5,000 in 1995, and continues on a downward slide (National Geographic, March 2004). From being a center of Soviet high technology, Armenia today is a country run by criminal gangs in which most people live without central heat and electricity

15 years later


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Malcolm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8086

posted 06 February 2005 02:38 AM      Profile for Scott Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, it is nice when countries get to choose democracy Like Nicaraugua electing Daniel Ortega.

Though we are going to find that democracy and freedom do not predetermine what choices are going to be made.

So if America is going to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi voter then they must do it with diplomacy as the military occupation effort has been a dismal failure.

The measurement of binding Arab public opinion(the Iraqi Democracy) in the region could curtail overly aggressive initiatives on the part of the US in the future.


From: Mission | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 February 2005 06:26 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, since Ronald Reagan's war of terror on Nicaraguan farmers less than two days drive from Texas, Nicaraguan's are just as poor as they were in the 1980's. Contra mercenaries from all over the Caribe were promised land in Nicaragua by the gringos. Good place to live if you're rich. Servants are cheap, and life is cheap in Nicaragua. Just another Latin American shithole on Uncle Sam's back door step.

[ 07 February 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Malcolm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8086

posted 06 February 2005 11:52 PM      Profile for Scott Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As we speak the US is slowly relegating Iran to the back burner.

U.S. Says Iran Atom Bomb Years Away, Tehran Defiant
Sun Feb 6, 2:36 PM ET

WASHINGTON/TEHRAN (Reuters) - The United States on Sunday played down any suggestion of attacking Iran, which it said may be years from making an atomic bomb, but Tehran vowed to press on with a nuclear program it insists is peaceful.

While President Bush (news - web sites) has refused to rule out military action, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Washington backed a diplomatic route................

Reference

Also I think that American people are going to have a hard time swallowing foreign adventurism when the domestic budget is undergoing burn and pillage.

[ 06 February 2005: Message edited by: Scott Malcolm ]

[ 06 February 2005: Message edited by: Scott Malcolm ]

[ 06 February 2005: Message edited by: Scott Malcolm ]


From: Mission | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 08 February 2005 11:57 AM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
IMO, attacking Iran in an all out war similar to Iraq would be a disastor. Iran is almost 4 times bigger than Iraq population wise. While the U.S. military could easily dispose of the Iranian forces, containing that country would be very difficult if an insurgency arose.

What i think would be a wise move, and i suspect we will see sooner or later, are selective destruction of targets within Iran, either from missiles fired from outside the countries, or U.S./European/Israeli Special forces carrying out a covert operation within the country.

I think that if certain military/government targets in Iran were effectively destroyed, the regime would very likely topple. One advantage Iran has over Iraq is that Iran has a very large student reform movement, that strongly favours a liberal democracy. If the opportunity ever arose to take out government officials, and break the back of the Iranian military in several selective missile strikes, i think the U.S. would go for it.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left Wing Zealot
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7405

posted 08 February 2005 12:19 PM      Profile for Left Wing Zealot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:

What i think would be a wise move, and i suspect we will see sooner or later, are selective destruction of targets within Iran, either from missiles fired from outside the countries, or U.S./European/Israeli Special forces carrying out a covert operation within the country.

Frankly, since Iran is bounded on one side by Iraq, on the other by Afghanistan (both of which have Western forces present), there is no need to perform an Iraqi-style invasion. Destroying military assets that can be dangerous on a remote basis, i.e. missiles and nuclear facilities, remove any threat that would result from this regime. Also, see below for the likely effect of such humiliation of the regime.

quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:

I think that if certain military/government targets in Iran were effectively destroyed, the regime would very likely topple. One advantage Iran has over Iraq is that Iran has a very large student reform movement, that strongly favours a liberal democracy. If the opportunity ever arose to take out government officials, and break the back of the Iranian military in several selective missile strikes, i think the U.S. would go for it.

I believe the US government should strongly support the student reform movement, and promote democracy in that manner. Such a democratic government would likely, given past Iranian history, to be strongly pro-Western.


From: Iqualit, Nunavut | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 08 February 2005 12:46 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Yes i agree with both your points, and judging from what Bush says in most of his speeches regarding Iran, he is trying to fuel their discontentment with the scum that lead that country. When i said destroy targets with special forces, i meant sneak in, plant explosives, and get out, not to go in trying the fight their way through.
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left Wing Zealot
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7405

posted 08 February 2005 12:54 PM      Profile for Left Wing Zealot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
Yes i agree with both your points, and judging from what Bush says in most of his speeches regarding Iran, he is trying to fuel their discontentment with the scum that lead that country. When i said destroy targets with special forces, i meant sneak in, plant explosives, and get out, not to go in trying the fight their way through.

Sort of like Israel's attack on Osirik?


From: Iqualit, Nunavut | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 08 February 2005 01:04 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, although perhaps with a little more patience, because while Iran is a very serious threat, it is not in the same league as Iraq was to Isreal back then. At present, the international community can wait for the opportunity for a strike to present itself, as sooner or later Iran is bound to let its gaurd down.

Also, Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel was fiercely nationalistic, and i would suspect had a personal vendetta agains Saddam Hussien.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 08 February 2005 01:17 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, for Pete's sake. Have you learned nothing from 9/11?
US military strikes on Iran would *not* weaken the regime. They would revive it. From being a rather discredited, rudderless outfit rapidly losing legitimacy, they would suddenly be able to say "You're either with us, or you're with the Imperialists". Bam! Instant strength and legitimacy. Dissent would be quashed and nobody would speak up because that would be giving comfort to the Yankee enemy. The US' usual destabilization tactics--uh, sorry, I mean, funnelling money to "pro-democracy" groups--would work nearly as badly. Look at our reaction to finding out that US religious zealots are funding the Canadian religious right's opposition to SSM. Then magnify it a few hundred times. Unless they could keep such funding *really* quiet, it would blow up in their faces, and there's one bit of news the Iranian government would not be suppressing.

If (and it's a *really* big if) the US really want democracy in Iran, what they need to do is shut the hell up, leave the place alone, and let the Iranians work on it. If anyone should exert influence, it would be Europe. Europe has the massive advantage when it comes to influencing Iran that it's not hated by religious zealots and would-be democrats alike because of the bloody Shah plus decades of saber-rattling and trade sanctions.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 08 February 2005 01:24 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
If the U.S. used missiles to destroy the capability of Iran's nuclear program increased the support for the regime, i think the U.S., and most people, would take that tradeoff. Remember, the primary objective of any strike against Iran would be the security of Israel, Europe, U.S. etc. Any democratic objectives within Iran would be secondary.
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 08 February 2005 02:15 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bushwa.
There is no way Iran would be striking the US, Europe etc. any more than Iraq would have (if it had turned out to have a program).
Missile strikes on Iran's largely hypothetical nuclear programs would be to ensure that Iran had no capacity to deter, so that Israel's arsenal would remain supreme in the region. Possibly to ensure that next time the US decides to do a few missile strikes, they would not need to fear Iran nuking a US military base in, say, Iraq in retaliation. And to reassure the US voters that the US is still high in the saddle, while simultaneously keeping them scared.

Any claims about prospects of Iran in any way threatening the continental US are fearmongering nonsense designed to keep the US population from getting unruly. Honestly, how many Goerings do these putzes get to pull before people stop salivating on order when the bell rings?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 08 February 2005 02:25 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Well i happen to think that Iran possessing Nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Iran's leaders have made it very clear that they want the state of Israel to be wiped off the map. Gee, i wonder what kind of weapon would do that? Also, Iran has a very public vendetta against the United States evidenced by the flow of anti-American rhetoric, and threats made by the Iranian leadership.

While i agree, Iran will not be able to strike the U.S. continent anytime soon with an ICBM launch, there are other less conventional ways to deliver a nuclear warhead, and Iran would have no shortage of volunteers willing to help out.

I cannot believe that anyone could possibly believe that Iran being a nuclear power is not a serious threat to global stability.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 08 February 2005 04:50 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
People said the exact same thing about Pakistan not so many years ago. While I tend to agree that any nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, I'm not about to demonize individual states based on North American pop notions about their cultures.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 08 February 2005 05:37 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
People said the exact same thing about Pakistan not so many years ago. While I tend to agree that any nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, I'm not about to demonize individual states based on North American pop notions about their cultures.

And now Pakistan has become an upstanding citizen on the world scene, right?? If you think the aggressive, anti-western, anti-Israel nature of Iran is a "North American pop notion" i suggest you do a little research on the Iranian regime...


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 08 February 2005 08:30 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They're anti-western and certainly anti-US. As to aggressive, they're much more defensive than aggressive. And they have their reasons. Frankly, the US has done and continues to do far more to them than they've ever done to the US. The US' approach has typically been to do their utmost to prove the clerics' anti-US rhetoric correct. This has probably already given the regime a longer lease on life than it would normally have had.

Sheesh, if a country had
--overthrown your democratic government in favour of a dictator
--propped him up, trained his torturers etc.
--hit you with economic sanctions when you got rid of him, and
--gotten their crony, a neighbouring dictator, to attack you, causing a horribly destructive war in which you lost hundreds of thousands dead

Then you the citizen might be just a little anti-that country, no? And even if your government sucked, if that country started interfering again, you'd probably be ready to leave them alone while you fought the common enemy. That's why it's stupid for the US to mess around with Iran. God, haven't they done enough?

Meanwhile, all religious issues aside, Israel is the local military powerhouse, has an aggressive attitude, and is sitting on 200+ nukes. Any sane neighbour would want a deterrent.

But even though I think it's only sensible for Iran to want a deterrent, there is in fact no real evidence that they are seeking one. What there is evidence of is that they are enriching uranium, something they need to do whether they are seeking a bomb or trying to get a peaceful reactor going. There are plenty of countries that enrich uranium. Not all of them are in the bomb club. It's interesting that there seems to be this unofficial list of countries that are less equal than others when it comes to this kind of thing: If you're on the US' hit list, you just forfeited your right to do uranium enrichment that other countries do routinely. If the US likes you, it just means you have or want a reactor, but if the US doesn't like you it means you want the bomb. What a bunch of BS.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Malcolm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8086

posted 08 February 2005 11:41 PM      Profile for Scott Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"North American pop notion" i suggest you do a little research on the Iranian regime...

I have to agree with Rufus's defensive position of Iran in regards to the US relationship.

Which I believe will be re-invigorated if America or any client states in the region launch any attack.

Such an attack will drive the facilities underground and beyond reach while inflaming the population against America for telling them what they can do to protect thesmselves while America themselves have nuclear weapons as well as America's regional partner.

[ 08 February 2005: Message edited by: Scott Malcolm ]


From: Mission | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 09 February 2005 10:23 AM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Hersh seems absolutely convinced that Iran must fall during the Bush presidency. They may have pushed the attacks back from this year to next year, but I tend to think that he's right. But I will reiterate until I'm blue in the face that the whole issue of Iranian nukes is a red herring. It's all about protecting and controlling the flow of oil to the US (peak oil) and, very secondarily, providing cover for the long-term security of Isreal. The US needs to secure the northern flank of the Gulf to make sure shipping routes are protected. Also, continuing to replace what they see as hostile Islamicist governments with puppet states (they believe) will ensure a greater stability in the region. The big wild card will be when or if the House of Saud falls in Saudi Arabia.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Malcolm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8086

posted 09 February 2005 03:32 PM      Profile for Scott Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Hersh seems absolutely convinced that Iran must fall during the Bush presidency.

I think everyone was convinced they would try until the election in Iraq.

Now it seems that the best the US can hope for is to consolidtate it's position by pressuring the settlement in Israel and having a successful transition out of Iraq with as much goodwill as possible.

Then they can let the moderates in the Middle East looking for normalized relations grow towards the exampled democracies without giving the fundementalists the excuse to crack down.


From: Mission | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 10 February 2005 01:36 AM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I have heard that Iran is still balking at the terms of the pact it has with France, Germany, and Britain. While the U.S. is not explicitly involved, they are essentially adding some "muscle" to the group. I am confident that as a group they will perform some missile strikes against Iran in the next few years.
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 10 February 2005 07:20 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that the solution must be some some way to develop good relations between an Islamic state and Israel.

I think that if there is less talk of bombing raids and more empathy with the goals and aspirations of those people in the Middle Eas to become "modern" but not lose their faith then we can avert catastrophe.

I mean is it sensible to the average Iranian to give up the traditions of centuries for America's
"Slut Television" culture?

Or conversely, should the evangelical right take it over television full of pseudo-Christian morality and the accompanying imagery of the apocalypse?

ZNET has an interesting article by Bill Moyers on this problem

quote:
No Tomorrow
Bill Moyers

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the
delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit
in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first
time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in
Washington.

Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues
hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is
generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their
offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the
danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the
interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging
Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress
that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the
imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the
last tree is felled, Christ will come back."


...sorry can't find the link - off to work.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 17 January 2006 10:15 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boinker:
...sorry can't find the link - off to work.
Here's one link to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Egalitarian American:
...It's all about protecting and controlling the flow of oil to the US (peak oil) and, very secondarily, providing cover for the long-term security of Isreal. The US needs to secure the northern flank of the Gulf to make sure shipping routes are protected. Also, continuing to replace what they see as hostile Islamicist governments with puppet states (they believe) will ensure a greater stability in the region.
True dat.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 18 January 2006 08:19 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dan Valdron sums up the Iran boondoggle in one long, brilliant rant.

quote:
So we've got the Iranian spring right, things are finally going to sort out?

And what happens? The Bush administration rebuffs every Iranian overture and does its best to instigate a cold war. Afghanistan is invaded, and suddenly, the Iranians are looking at American troops and allies on their eastern border. Then Iraq is invaded, and its American troops and allies on their western border. Then bases and treaties in Uzbekistan and whoops, there's more American troops and allies on the northern border. The Persian Gulf is filled with American warships and carrier fleets.

Wow, the Iranians are surrounded. And the tough talk is constant. Iran is part of the 'Axis of Evil', the Americans tell each other 'Bagdad, hmmph, real men go to Tehran.' Essentially, America has been threatening military action against Iran for the last five years, and has surrounded the country on every side with troops, bases and allies.

American aircraft invade Iranian airspace regularly. American special forces undertake operations inside Iran. Americans regularly accuse Iranians of interference in Iraq. Dick Cheney pontificates about Israel bombing Iran *after he has just handed over to Israel the long range bombers and bunker busting bombs* required to do the job.

Meanwhile, the United States undertakes economic warfare against Iran, interfering with its business dealings with third party countries, trying to scuttle a pipeline deal with India, and it goes on and on. The hysteria about the Iranians nuclear program is just more of the same.

Now how in God's Bloody Name do you think the Iranians are going to respond to that. Should they concede the nuclear program, abandon their pipeline project? If so, its not going to do them any good. America will just seek more concessions. Each surrender will be met by new demands. This isn't hard to figure out. It's exactly what Bush did with Iraq.

Perhaps overtures, good will gestures, trying to act like a peaceful nation. Did all those things, doesn't matter. The Bush administration is still on a collision course.

So, the Mullahs are concerned that they're faced with a homicidal crazy state, the Iranian people are scared. When people are scared and faced with an aggressive warmongering power which keeps threatening to attack them, continually trespasses on its borders and is undertaking economic warfare... who the hell are they going to elect? Ahminajad may be a crazy bastard, but you assholes, you utter assholes did every thing you could to elect him short of donating 50,000 Diebold machines and mailing his party the trapdoor codes.



From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 January 2006 08:45 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's a good rant.

Gosh, I had a bit of a start when I suddenly noticed the dates on most of this thread. I'd been reading right through, finding it entirely topical, and then - jolt!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 18 January 2006 09:04 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't even notice! Scary.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 January 2006 09:25 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
What I find scary is that Iran is the only country in the region where the people actually like the U.S., but that support will dissapear pretty quickly if they ever mover against them.

Also, one error in that rant; I do not believe that Israel has the long-range bombers to hit Iran (unless they want to make it a one-way trip). Yes, the U.S. sold them the bombs, but we would have heard about them obtaining new aircraft, and it would have been a pretty big deal.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 18 January 2006 09:53 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel obtains F-16I long-range fighter/bomber. Nov 2003.

quote:
Pilots of the newest F-16I long-range fighter/bomber which is to roll off the assembly line in Texas Friday are itchy to get their hands on the $45 million jet.

Aerospace giant Lockheed Martin delivers the first F-16I at its plant here Friday to an Israeli delegation led by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, fresh from his talks in Washington.

The rollout ceremony marks the interim phase in this $4.5 billion dollar deal, the largest arms deal ever taken in the history of the state. Lockheed Martin won the tender, beating rival Boeing, in 1999 to supply 102 of the advanced fighter jets which are aimed at strengthening the IAF's long reach, being able to reach nations like Iran and Libya.

A total of 102 two-seat F-16Is will be delivered to Israel under two production contracts worth a combined $4.4 billion. The first aircraft will arrive early next year and subsequent deliveries will occur at a rate of two per month spanning about four years.



From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 18 January 2006 09:55 AM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Egalitarian American:

seconded


motion carried unanimously


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 January 2006 12:21 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
Israel obtains F-16I long-range fighter/bomber. Nov 2003.
As I expected, the new F-16i is probably (reports are conflicting) still not enough to reach Iran (and get back).
quote:
Originally posted by globalsecurity.org:
There are conflicting reports concerning the F-16I combat radius, but the most reliable source reports a combat radius of 2,100 km, on par with the F-15I. The Israeli military would not disclose the exact range of the jet, but one senior air force officer said, "it can reach the capitals of all the countries in the region." One report says that "it has an 820 km non-refueling radius of operation, sufficient to reach both Libya and Iran" -- but a glance at a map reveals that 820 kilometers from Israel is short of Baghdad, and far short of the 1,500 kilometers need to reach Tehran. One report suggest that the F-16I has an unrefueled combat strike radius of 1,640 kilometers without refueling. Another report relates that the external fuel capacity in conformal fuel tanks increases the aircraft range to 800 miles (1,500 km). One published reports states that the external fuel tanks above the central fuselage, extend the range of the jet and the reach of the Israeli air force by 25 percent.

F-16I Sufa (Storm)

But apparently they do have inflight re-fueling (converted 707's) - I forgot about the attack on the PLO headquarters in Tunisia which is easily 2,000km or so away.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 18 January 2006 12:58 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find it hard to believe that Israel would initiate an attack on Iran, these days, without the US being fully aware of it. If such an attack had the tacit approval of the US, no doubt they would help in it, for, from their point of view, success would be paramount, not keeping the veneer of deniability that they were involved.

On the other hand, the US couldn't get involved unless the rhethoric is running a lot stronger; whereas Israel probably could, because the rhetoric there is always supportive.

Probably neither does it in the near term.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 18 January 2006 08:27 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How come Israel doesn't have the capacity to make round-trip military flights to Iran, but at the same time we are asked to believe that Iran will pose a serious threat to Israel in the very near future?

Does Iran have a superior air force to that of Israel?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 18 January 2006 08:48 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
The interesting thing is that the only reason Iran has an air force at all is because of Israeli foreign aid to Iranian mullahs (things get confusing in the middle east, no?). During the Iran-Iraq war where the U.S. was backing the Iraqis who used Russian equipment, the Israeli Air Force was keeping the Iranian Air Force flying with technical aid for the Iranian American-manufactured Phantom fighters.

However as alegiences continue to turn between various dictators I suspect that the Israelis will rely on ther intermediate range ballistic missiles to deliver nuclear payloads if required.


From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 18 January 2006 10:29 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has "no right" to nuclear defence?

The West Has Picked A Fight With Iran That It Cannot Win


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 21 January 2006 11:07 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel's Mofaz: Ahmedinejad spells Iran's disaster

Reuters - Israel's Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz warned the people of Iran on Saturday that their president would bring disaster and suffering upon them if he continued to call for the destruction of the Jewish state.

He also said Israel was preparing to protect itself if international diplomatic efforts failed to convince Iran to give up its nuclear programme.

Speaking at the Herzliya conference, an annual gathering of politicians and academics, Iranian-born Mofaz said he knew a large portion of the Iranian people did not support President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's ideology.

Mofaz addressed the Iranian people saying: "Ahmedinejad, his hallucinatory statements, his criminal actions and his extreme views will bring disaster upon you. Do what you understand needs to be done in order to prevent this."

Mofaz, who was speaking in Hebrew, said Ahmedinejad should look at historical examples of others who tried to destroy the Jewish people. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 21 January 2006 11:08 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran

AP - Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Ian's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 07 February 2006 11:36 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails

Times Online - It is the option of last resort with consequences too hideous to contemplate. And yet, with diplomacy nearly exhausted, the use of military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme is being actively considered by those grappling with one of the world’s most pressing security problems.

For five years the West has used every diplomatic device at its disposal to entice Iran into complying with strict conditions that would prevent its nuclear programme being diverted to produce an atomic bomb.

Those efforts, however, are now faltering. US leaders are openly discussing the looming conflict. A recent poll showed that 57 per cent of Americans favoured military intervention to stop Iran building a bomb.

Tehran scoffs at threats by the West, has pledged to press on with its nuclear progamme and defend itself if attacked.

The military option may be the only means of halting a regime that has threatened to annihilate Israel from developing a bomb and triggering a regional nuclear arms race.

Experts agree that America has the military capability to destroy Iran’s dozen known atomic sites. US forces virtually surround Iran with military air bases to the west in Afghanistan, to the east in Iraq, Turkey and Qatar and the south in Oman and Diego Garcia. The US Navy also has a carrier group in the Gulf, armed with attack aircraft and Tomahawk cruise missiles. B2 stealth bombers flying from mainland America could also be used.

The air campaign would not be easy. The Iranians have been preparing for an attack. Key sites are ringed with air defences and buried underground. Sensitive parts of the Natanz facility are concealed 18 metres (60ft) underground and protected by reinforced concrete two meters thick. Similar protection has been built around the uranium conversion site at Esfahan.

“American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq centre in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq,” said the Global Security consultantcy. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 08 February 2006 03:41 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ex-U.N. inspector: Iran's next: Ritter warns that another U.S. invasion in Mideast is imminent

TCMnet - The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.

"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.

Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclearenergy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.

He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves."

"How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
asterlake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11892

posted 08 February 2006 04:50 PM      Profile for asterlake        Edit/Delete Post
The U.S. can squash Iran like a bug at any time of its own choice. Possessing 200 nuclear weapons, so can Israel. The concept of a 'threat' is a relative one. Today a rogue Muslim state can jump up and down, scream a bit, maybe finance a few terrorists under the table and so on but they aren't really much of a threat to either the USA or Israel.

On 9/11 the USA suffered a terrorist attack and despite the hype it was barely a pin prick on an elephant. It probably had no impact on hamburger sales in Toledo or Sponge Bob cartoons on Kid TV.

No American President or Israeli PM is going to allow the Iranians to possess a nuclear weapon. Period. The Americans know this. The Israelis know this and most of all, the Iranians know this. What's going on now is all posturing and fluff and venting of other issues to appeal largely to domestic happenings.

If perchance a nuclear weapon materialized in Iran tomorrow, Iranians would run as fast as they could and yell as they were running 'get the hell rid of that thing'. Despite the rhetoric of the Iranian regime. no scientist or engineer would want to be within 25 miles of any 'bomb'.


From: Exshaw | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 February 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry. Theories of nulcear deterance are wide and varied.

For instance, in the cold war conflict the chief danger which the US percieved was that the MAD docterine would allow Soviet conventional weapons battlefield superiority, given that Soviet conventional forces were vastly numerically superior to the fig leaf defence of NATO conventional forces. The theroy being that if MAD was the outcome conventional forces could actually be used in the western theater. Enter medium range missiles such as the Pershing system. The US now believed that it might be able to effectively use nuclear weapons technology to compensate for Soviet conventional superiority without necessarily elevating the conflict to MAD, since these weapons would be used only at an operational not strategic level, knocking out communications, disrupting supply and attacking infrastructure as opposed to targetting cities.

In retaliation for this the USSR made it clear that it would respond to any first use of Nuclear weapons technology by moving to the strategic level. They said this, but the question is would they have? Well, that is brinksmanship, and all theory.

On the other hand China has always foccussed on limited deterance. The idea being that even though they never achieved the a nuclear capability which could wipe out all the human life on the planet, they did have enough of it to wipe out the Western Seaboard of the USA and the Japanese. This they felt was enough to gove it an ability to use its conventional force as "threat" to help it wield influence among the countries which it considers important in its immediate sphere of influence.

The Iranian nuclear deterant will fit within the Chinese startegy. Meaning, yes we are aware that you will wipe us out as a people, but you must consider this in terms of elimination of Tel Aviv.

The threat to Israeli and US interests is that by balancing the nuclear equation, Iran will be able to wield more influnce through threat of its conventional capablity, which is considerable just in terms of manpower, making it impossible for Israel or the US play the nuclear card as deterance, without accepting the loss of most of the population of Israel.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 08 February 2006 09:55 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
YEAH! Let's attack Iran, and when we've slaughtered their children, let's attack Saudi Arabia, then Pakistan, then...should we go alphabetically or just throw darts at the map on the wall, some of us are filthy rich and getting filtheir richer and there seem to be no end of people willing to donate their daughters and sons to the cause...cause we gotta have the oil and gas so's we can take our summer holidays in the brand new motor home...and we can always find some wingnut tin pot war lord to prop up for as long as he does the things we tell him to do and if he gets any bright idea of his own we can invade all over again and replace him...yeah, let's go, hell there are enough children on the face of the earth to keep us all busy for years and the adults busy making more all the time. General Sherman said "nits make lice" let's get'em before they're old enough to defend themselves...sounds great to me!

Huh? Whazzat? Go myself? Not in your wildest dreams, buddy, my fat ass is staying warm, dry, and safe right here at home while I count my war bucks.

But my neighbour has a couple of healthy teen agers, they can go...someone else's kids can go... everybody else's kids can go...

and Kazakstan, and Burundi and ....


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 10 February 2006 11:58 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John Pilger in the New Statesman:
quote:
Iran offers no "nuclear threat". There is not the slightest evidence that it has the centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to weapons-grade material. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly said his inspectors have found nothing to support American and Israeli claims. Iran has done nothing illegal; it has demonstrated no territorial ambitions nor has it engaged in the occupation of a foreign country - unlike the United States, Britain and Israel. It has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to allow inspectors to "go anywhere and see anything" - unlike the US and Israel. The latter has refused to recognise the NPT, and has between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons targeted at Iran and other Middle Eastern states.

Those who flout the rules of the NPT are America's and Britain's anointed friends. Both India and Pakistan have developed their nuclear weapons secretly and in defiance of the treaty. The Pakistani military dictatorship has openly exported its nuclear technology. In Iran's case, the excuse that the Bush regime has seized upon is the suspension of purely voluntary "confidence-building" measures that Iran agreed with Britain, France and Germany in order to placate the US and show that it was "above suspicion". Seals were placed on nuclear equipment following a concession given, some say foolishly, by Iranian negotiators and which had nothing to do with Iran's obligations under the NPT.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 13 February 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
10,000 would die in A-plant attack on Iran

Telegraph - A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today.

Hundreds of scientists and technicians would be targets in the opening salvos as the attacks focused on eliminating further nuclear development, the Oxford Research Group says in Iran: Consequences of a War.

The research coincides with reports that strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for "a last resort" strike if diplomacy fails. Plans for an assault have taken on "greater urgency" in recent months, The Sunday Telegraph said.

Tacticians at central command and strategic command, who report to Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, have been identifying targets and the weapons needed to hit them.

The Oxford report says that Britain could be drawn into the conflict if the Prime Minister allowed American B2 bombers, which can carry 40,000lb of precision bombs, to use bases at Fairford, Glos, and on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

Precision bombing could put Iran's weapons programme back five to 10 years but within a month the situation would become "an extremely dangerous conflict", says Prof Paul Rogers, the report's author.

The attack would result in "a protracted military confrontation" involving Israel, Lebanon and some Gulf states. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 13 February 2006 07:45 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Poll: Americans nervous about Iran

Bush's approval rating drops to 39 percent

CNN - Americans are nervous about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, but also worry about the ability of the United States and the United Nations to deal with the situation, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday suggests.

The 1,000 adults who responded to the telephone poll taken between Thursday and Sunday said they fear the Bush administration will be too quick to use military force if diplomacy fails, and at the same time are concerned the administration won't do enough to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Most respondents saw a high chance that if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, it would use them against the United States or its ally Israel.

Fifty-nine percent thought Iran would use nuclear weapons against the United States, and 80 percent thought the Iranians would hand them over to terrorists to use against the United States.

More thought Iran would use the weapons against Israel -- 77 percent -- and about as many -- 81 percent -- thought Iran would give them to terrorists who wanted to use them against Israel.

Sixty-eight percent of the respondents called for economic and diplomatic action to keep Iran away from atomic weapons, while only 9 percent called for military action. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 14 February 2006 12:13 AM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
If the American people had any idea about how much nuclear material was floating around in the old Soviet Bloc they might worry far more about that than what Iran might or might not do in the future.

Organised crime really has no care about who they sell to, only the highest bidder. They are capitalists in the true sense of the word.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 February 2006 04:50 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
I say "Let's attack Kirghizstan". I have never been able to pronounce the name of that country correctly with the guttural "gh" sound and any country with a weird unpronounceable name deserves to be whacked.

After that, there are a couple of Welsh villages such as Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, FFestiniog and Llanrwst that deserve to be wiped off the map. How dare they forget vowels I can wrap my tongue around.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 14 February 2006 07:26 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:
[QB] More thought Iran would use the weapons against Israel -- 77 percent -- and about as many -- 81 percent -- thought Iran would give them to terrorists who wanted to use them against Israel.

These numbers demonstrate the completely irrational picture that those questioned have of Iran. If anything, a realistic assesment might include the fear that Iran would use them, but the idea that they would just hand them over to whomever to do whatever is just ridiculous. Nuclear weapons are a strategic weapon: better left in their silos than used as so much history has demonstrated. Iran - if they are building them, and they probably are - are looking to gain prestige as much as actual military capability. A nuclear umbrella would tip the balance of power in the Middle East slightly towards them by keeping the US out of their affairs to a greater degree and by providing a counter-balance to Israel's nuclear threat. It would give them an even greater say in Iraqi politics, where connections with the Shiite community already afford them considerable sway. It would also give them a bigger say in the petrol conflicts already waging around the Caspian to the north and any future open hostilities that may result. That's what the American government is afraid of.

Spending millions (or even billions) on nuclear weapons only to give the finished product away to some rogue group who may or may not use them in a way determined by Iranian policy would be stupid, shortsighted and a complete waste of time and money. You don't take a sure thing and turn it into an unsure thing, as even any novice gambler can tell you.

Again, as I've said before, the regime in Tehran is a lot of things - many of them reprehensible) but they've managed to stay comfortably in power for close to thirty years in spite of the considerable diplomatic and economic pressures placed on them by the US and others. They seem to understand the game of power politics (re: petro-politics) very well. I think it's the spectre of the "wild-eyed Asian hordes" that still haunts the collective dreams of many in the West that keeps people from seeing this.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 15 February 2006 02:52 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
US Muslim scholar says Iran attack would be insane

Reuters - A prominent American Muslim scholar who advised President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks said any U.S.-led attack on Iran would be crazy and throw the Middle East into political turmoil.

"I think it's insane," 45-year-old Hamza Yusuf told Reuters late on Monday. "Iran is a huge country and it can potentially set the entire region in flames." ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 16 February 2006 03:39 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Russia warns U.S. against striking Iran

AP - Russia's top military chief on Thursday warned the United States against launching a military strike against Iran and a top diplomat voiced hope that close cooperation with China could help resolve the Tehran nuclear crisis.

With tension mounting over Iran's nuclear programs, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, warned the United States against attacking Iran.

"A military scenario can't be ruled out," Baluyevsky was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

He said that while Iran's military potential cannot compare to the United States', "it is hard to predict how the Muslim world will respond to the use of force against Iran."

"This may stir the whole world, and it is crucial to prevent anything like that," Baluyevsky was quoted as saying. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 February 2006 08:13 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The threat to Israeli and US interests is that by balancing the nuclear equation, Iran will be able to wield more influnce through threat of its conventional capablity, which is considerable just in terms of manpower, making it impossible for Israel or the US play the nuclear card as deterance, without accepting the loss of most of the population of Israel.

I think the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the beginning had something to do with desiring a strategic military alliance in the middle east. I'm thinking that if they manage to pull off occupying Afghanistan or Iraq over the next decade or so, the need for an ally in the region could end at some point. The Yanks think they are spread too thinly around the world right now. But at the same time, they seem to be threatening to build more empire with fewer soldiers on the ground. I think they'll have to raise college tuition fees a little more in order to make it worth a gamble for the grunts.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 23 February 2006 06:38 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?
Will the US launch "Mini-nukes" against Iran in Retaliation for Tehran's "Non-compliance"?

by Michel Chossudovsky
February 22, 2006

quote:
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.

All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defense".

The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.

As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population".


A very scary article...


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 24 February 2006 11:28 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Bush Administration/Lapdog Media campaign to demonize Iran seems to be working.

Iran now tops the polls as the country USians now consider to be their biggest "enemy", according to a Feb. 6-9 Gallup Poll.

"Greatest enemy" poll results:
Iran 31% (Last year: 14%)
Iraq 22% (Last year: 22%)
North Korea 15%


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 04 March 2006 05:27 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
U.S. Seeks Deadline in Dispute With Iran

Wash Post - The Bush administration, preparing to take Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council as early as next week, is seeking a 30-day deadline for Tehran to halt its nuclear program and cooperate with international inspectors or face severe diplomatic pressures, according to several senior U.S. and European officials.

But the officials, who discussed the details of the diplomatic strategy on the condition of anonymity, said they expected tough negotiations among the Security Council's 15 members and said much hinges on Russia. ...

Going to the council represents the second time in four years that the Bush administration has tried to persuade the U.N. to pressure a Muslim country accused of hiding a weapons program. Wary of the comparisons to Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction were found, the White House is hoping a combination of diplomacy, U.N. inspections and negotiations will succeed in pressuring Iran. At the same time, Washington hopes to ease the concerns of allies suspicious of U.S. intentions. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 04 March 2006 10:43 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
We are faced with the bizarre spectacle of Bush forgiving India who did NOT sign the nuclear proliferation treaty and has him about to bomb Iran a country who HAS signed and who has complied, although that may change shortly.

This is international policy made up as he goes along and the consequences could be unpleasant now the genie is out of the bottle. North Korea is never mentioned..and who is more brutal than Kim Jung Il.

None of this policy makes any sense to me by the way. Pakistan and Dr Khan proliferated all over the place..that one is only an oopsie too.

A comment made yesterday by a democrat on Bush was that he never should have run a small town let alone the United States.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 March 2006 07:33 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The US Plot To Foil Iran's Bomb Program

quote:
ran and EU officials failed yesterday to resolve a standoff over Iran's nuclear work before a United Nations atomic watchdog meeting Monday that may lead to Security Council action. In his book, State of War, James Risen includes the startling claim that the U.S. actually handed Tehran the blueprints for an atomic bomb in 2000. The CIA scheme was to introduce intentional flaws in the design plans that would delay or derail Iranian work. The following excerpt shows the poorly conceived plan and its easily identified flaws.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 March 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That 2000 episode is interesting, but of course the seeds of Iran's nuclear program were sown many decades earlier by the United States.

An article by Saul Landau describes how on July 10, 1978, a US-Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement was signed.

"The agreement was supposed to facilitate cooperation in the field of nuclear energy and to govern the export and transfer of equipment and material to Iran's nuclear energy program. Iran was also to receive American technology and help in searching for uranium deposits," Landau quotes from a book by Mohammad Sahimi, Iran's Nuclear Program.

I started a thread about this a couple of months ago.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 06 March 2006 03:10 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
US envoy hints at strike to stop Iran

· Bolton says nuclear plant can be 'taken out'
· UN agency meets to send report to security council

Guardian - The US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has told British MPs that military action could bring Iran's nuclear programme to a halt if all diplomatic efforts fail. The warning came ahead of a meeting today of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which will forward a report on Iran's nuclear activities to the UN security council.

The council will have to decide whether to impose sanctions, an issue that could split the international community as policy towards Iraq did before the invasion.

Yesterday the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said: "Nobody has said that we have to rush immediately to sanctions of some kind."

However the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, visiting Washington last week, encountered sharply different views within the Bush administration. The most hawkish came from Mr Bolton. According to Eric Illsley, a Labour committee member, the envoy told the MPs: "They must know everything is on the table and they must understand what that means. We can hit different points along the line. You only have to take out one part of their nuclear operation to take the whole thing down."

It is unusual for an administration official to go into detail about possible military action against Iran. To produce significant amounts of enriched uranium, Iran would have to set up a self-sustaining cycle of processes. Mr Bolton appeared to be suggesting that cycle could be hit at its most vulnerable point. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 March 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
War with Iran may be inevitable.

For one thing should it win considerable sway over the Iraqi shia territory as it seemed poised to do directly after it captured the Fao peninsula and began the Kerbala 5 offensive aimed at taking Basra in 1987, it is very likely that Saudi Arabia may feel forced to intervene.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 06 March 2006 04:40 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
Does anyone else wonder what role the new Iran Bourse will play in the Bush policies to put Iran in its place?
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 March 2006 04:43 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that and Iran's oil and gas supplies are the only issues that really matter to the barbarians in the White House.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 08 March 2006 02:26 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel will have to act on Iran if UN can't

Reuters - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on Wednesday.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program.

"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 March 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:

Reuters - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on Wednesday.

Let's not forget that Israel is the only nation in the region to actually target its neighbours with armed nuclear warheads, and begin the pre-launch procedure.

I can see why Israel would have no desire to experience the threat that they've been holding over their neighbours for 35 years.

"Mom! He hit me back!" is their cry.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 08 March 2006 03:46 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Meanwhile, in other news....

North Korean Missile Test Causes Concern

AP - North Korea test-fired two short-range missiles Wednesday, an unsettling reminder of the reclusive communist regime's ability to cause instability in the region where a standoff persists over its nuclear program.

The development underscored the dangers posed by the country's longer-range missiles and professed nuclear weapons program. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 09 March 2006 09:43 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Other nations, sensing a growing nuclear catastrophe, could dump the US dollar altogether as the Federal Reserve and Treasury print currency by the metric tonnes out of thin air to feed the frenzy (which may already be in the works, as the Fed will cease revealing the M3 aggregate money figure in, of all months, March 2006.). Oil would surpass $200/barrel in the US, gold would break $1000/troy ounce and martial law would be declared in multiple nations.

All because our government refuses to renegotiate the terms under which energy commodities are priced and traded around the world, despite the clear urgency for monetary and fiscal reform.


Challenging the mighty dollar


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 09 March 2006 11:29 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain," Javad Vaeidi, head of the Iranian delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the agency's board during an all-day, closed-door meeting in Vienna. "So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll."

First Horseman


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 09 March 2006 11:35 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"If the Iranian nation and government steps back on nuclear energy today, the story will not end there and the Americans will make another pretext," said Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, here.

I'd say he has their number.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 09 March 2006 11:40 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quote: "If the Iranian nation and government steps back on nuclear energy today, the story will not end there and the Americans will make another pretext"
-
I think that's absolutely right on. I have no trust or goodwill whatsoever for the current Amerikan administration.

From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pyed Typer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12033

posted 09 March 2006 11:30 PM      Profile for Pyed Typer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Logic out the window at the White House
by Gwynne Dyer
Mar 9, 2006

The biggest pitfall in predicting the behavior of radical groups like the inner circle of the Bush administration is that you keep telling yourself that they would never actually do whatever it is they’re talking about. Surely they must realize that acting like that would cause a disaster. Then they go right ahead and do it.

“(The Iranians) must know everything is on the table and they must understand what that means,” U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told a group of visiting British politicians last week. “We can hit different points along the line. You only have to take out one part of their nuclear operation to take the whole thing down.” In other words, he was calmly proposing an illegal attack on a sovereign state, possibly involving nuclear weapons.


Full Article at Information Clearing House


[ 09 March 2006: Message edited by: Pyed Typer ]


From: Somewhere ahead of the rats | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 12 March 2006 11:03 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by eau:
Does anyone else wonder what role the new Iran Bourse will play in the Bush policies to put Iran in its place?

See this thread which I suppose I could have put in the Middle East Forum, but it's about a euro-oil-trading mechanism, not just about the Middle East.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 12 March 2006 02:51 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
IRAN NUCLEAR: TEHRAN MULLS TAKING UN ATOMIC AGENCY TO HAGUE COURT

quote:
Vienna, 10 March. (AKI) - A member of the Iranian delegation to the UN atomic energy agency board meeting in Vienna says Tehran may take the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the International Tribunal in the Hague. The Iranian diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous, underlined that under the IAEA statute, no signatory of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) can be asked to suspend its nuclear activities. "Almost all the 16 resolutions approved by the IAEA on Iran ask our country to suspend part of its nuclear programme" he said.

"There are all the conditions to bring the IAEA to the international court, given that under article 17 of this body's statute the competent court for disputes between the agencies and member states is the Hague" the diplomat added.


Iran is fed up with the attempt by the US to push the UNSC and the IAEA into 'enforcing' obligations which do not exist under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and has proposed taking them to court.

Under the NNPT, all signatories have the absolute right to pursue a nuclear program, and cannot be deprived of it. On the law, the Iranians have an air-tight case.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 02 April 2006 08:28 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Government in secret talks about strike against Iran

The Telegraph - The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme. ...

The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants - a land assault is not being considered at the moment.

But confirmation that Britain has started contingency planning will undermine the claim last month by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that a military attack against Iran was "inconceivable".

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, insisted, during a visit to Blackburn yesterday, that all negotiating options - including the use of force - remained open in an attempt to resolve the crisis. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 02 April 2006 08:28 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism

U.S. Experts Wary of Military Action Over Nuclear Program

Wash Post - As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.

U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said.

Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.

But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups -- namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah -- to be better organized, trained and equipped than the al-Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ...


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 06 April 2006 05:26 AM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:
Government in secret talks about strike against Iran


I found this article quite astonishing when I first read it a few days ago. The Telegraph is no World Weekly News, and the action outlined is quite unambiguous: Iran will be bombed by the US soon. I wonder who the sources were for the article...how high up and why the leak?


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 06 April 2006 07:20 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
dubai: home base for cold war against iran

quote:
The plan for regime change in Iran is not just a future fantasy. It’s already underway. Cheney has “promoted a drive to bring Iranian scholars and students to America, blanket the country with radio and television broadcasts and support Iranian political dissidents. That $85 million State Department program is being overseen by Elizabeth Cheney, a principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, who is also the vice president's daughter.”

And where is much of the money being spent? You guessed it again: Dubai.

According to the Asia Times, unnamed American-based groups, with unknown sources of funding, are bringing Iranian “dissidents” to Dubai for training in the arts of regime change. The trainers are largely drawn from the ranks of Otpor, the Serbian movement that overthrew the late Slobodan Milosovec. But an Iranian who attended one of these training sessions also referred to “Americans who appeared to supervise the course and whose affiliation remained unclear throughout.”



From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 08 April 2006 08:10 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Link to newer thread:
US planning nuclear attack against Iran

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca