What do we do about Iran? Do you think that it is a threat to the US? Should we just sit back and let them develop nuclear weapons? Some of you feel that we screwed up in Iraq, what do we do about Iran? ***************************************************************** 04-16-06 11:57 PM newnickname It's a good question, Scotty. The military option of air-strikes doesn't look practical - technically, politically, or in any other way. It wouldn't even halt nuclear weapons development in Iran - it might even accelerate it.
On the other hand, diplomatic solutions sound pretty lame.
'So what steps should the United States be taking?
The U.S. should engage Iran diplomatically. So far, England, France and Germany have led the negotiated effort to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, while Russia has explored other alternatives. It is time for the U.S. to lead such efforts, not stand by.
We must push for a complete halt to Iran's enrichment activities and full access to all nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran refuses, international sanctions should follow, and inspections with U.N. forces if necessary.
At the same time, the U.S. needs to build international alliances to create a unified front opposed to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.'www.latimes.com
Three countries - Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan - have, in fact, voluntarily given up nuclear arms in return for acceptance by the international economic community, and aid.
But maybe those are special cases. Iran is developing nuclear weapons basically because so many other countries have them. Nuclear proliferation cannot be tackled individual country by individual country. It's an arms race, and everyone needs to agree to step down their nuclear arms activities simultaneously.
The US and Russia still have ridiculously large nuclear capabilities. One start to persuading Iran to accept international inspection would involve the US giving up a little more of its own capacity to destroy the planet many times over. The US could also stop giving the impression that it's OK for the allies of the moment - India or Israel - to have nuclear weapons (and somehow it's tolerable for North Korea, too) but not for others.
I know that idea could be counter-intuitive for many, but think of it as a kind of judo. Sometimes the smart move is to give a little. Consider, also, that even the so-called 'tactical' nuclear weapons are proving useless to the US, post Cold War.
It's still not clear to me why financial and diplomatic sanctions are seen as adequate against North Korea but there's a crash-bang-wallop panic, including talk of "bunker-busters" in the case of Iran.
Surely it can only be that North Korea is not seen as a source of terrorism or support for muslim extremism.So North Korea is not seen as a threat to Americans or anyone else.Iran, on the other hand, talks hostilely, has supported terrorism, does have fundamentalist elements in its government and has the missiles, now or being developed, to strike as far as Israel.
'As head of North Korea's special forces for much of the 70s and 80s, he [Kim Jong-il] has been linked by defectors to international terrorist activities, including the 1986 bombing of a Korean Airlines jet in which 115 people died'bbc.co.uk
If the US government wanted to whip up hysteria about North Korea's nuclear weapons program, it could do so just as easily as it seems to have over Iran's. Scotty does ask a good question, but he might - given a different focus on the part of the Whitehouse - be asking 'what to do about North Korea?'
04-17-06, 09:32 AM newnickname I guess we should remember also that, in preventing the development of WMD, sanctions and UN inspections were working in the case of Iraq.
Another point is that the hardline government of Iraq is maybe vulnerable to popular disapproval. The invasion of Iraq has demonstrated spectacularly that democracy can't be imposed by bombing a country to pieces, but there are subtler ways to encourage real democratic progress.
'Iran’s population is the largest and, in many ways, the most progressive and the most ready for change in the Middle East. The President of the United States’ declaration that “an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom,” was accurate, to the point and has for more than two decades served as the driving energy behind a domino of problems throughout the Middle East.
Iran’s clerical regime is visibly experiencing a rapid loss of legitimacy, among its citizenry, which is indicative by its own radicalization and an increased vocalization of public demands by the Iranian people for fundamental change.'www.iraninstitutefordemocracy.org
A discussion, by two former members of the National Security Council, of what might happen if Iran were bombed; Bombs That Would Backfire
04-17-06, 05:05 PM Sarai My answer won't be popular, but I can't see how we can tell other countries what to do with nuclear weapons when we ourselves have such a dangerous amount. The US has over 10,000 nuclear warheads. Russia has around 16,000. The next largest amount of nuclear warheads in any country is China, with 410.
The best way I can think of for the US (and Russia) to deal with the nuclear threat is to at least get themselves down to under 1,000 nuclear warheads (500 sounds good for a start, then negotiating to get ourselves and the rest of the world down to 0).
The nuclear threat is terrifying and frankly, I don't want any part of it - I don't want to be a target of it, and I don't want to be guilty of using it. As long as we have so many more warheads than every other country in the world, the US and Russia are a threat, and I don't blame our enemies for feeling that they need to defend themselves from that threat. I wish they wouldn't choose to create nuclear weapons - I think it's immoral - but I live in a real glass house to say so.
If we are to lead other countries, we should lead by example.
04-17-06, 08:59 PM coldfuse Am I off base in the opinion that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is something of a nut case? If so, what is our diplomatic potential with Iran?
04-17-06, 09:19 PM newnickname He does seem to be an odious religious fanatic, but what alternative is there to some form of diplomacy, or the encouragement of grass-roots overthrow of his regime?
How well is "we'll nuke you to stop you developing nukes" going to work against such a fanatic? Is he really likely to say, "OK, I give in, then"? Even after parts of Iran are bombed (and much of the Middle East irradiated)?
Actually, how well has the threat of military attack (with nuclear weapons) worked against anyone trying to develop nuclear weapons? I doubt it ever has.
It's a horrible thought that both Ahmadinejad and Bush might quite like the idea of a cataclysmic showdown, to assure their place in history, fulfill their loopy religious ideas and divert attention from all those mundane problems they're having just running their respective countries.
'"Other than a Cold War 'Russia gone bad' scenario, I don't believe our nuclear stockpile is useful against our new foes," Hobson [(R-OH)] told a National Academy of Sciences gathering last year. "What worries me about the nuclear penetrator is that some idiot might try to use it," he said.'www.carnegieendowment.org
04-19-06, 09:03 AM Rakuchild I agree with Sarai. Lead by example. If you don't want your country nuked, don't nuke others. With boosh refusing to decline to use nukes against Iran, I really have to wonder if he's not going to be happy until everyone is living in total fear or just dead. I find it disturbing that he's even talking about using nukes. I've always questioned his intelligence, now I'm more about questioning his freaking sanity.
I'm also concerned that his talk will set off other nuke nuts with itchy trigger fingers and a desire to see the world end. Why is no one suggesting the "president" shut his stupid mouth? Mad
04-19-06, 09:23 AM frankvan " Some of you feel that we screwed up in Iraq -" Scotty Understatement of the Year Award.
When confronted by fanatics who are in the habit of turning themselves into human explosives for the purpose of injuring and/or killing as many of their perceived enemies as possible, doesn't it seem futile to threaten them with bodily harm? Shouldn't we try diplomacy? Confused
04-20-06, 12:19 AM newnickname 'But what if the Bush administration orders it anyway? What if they DO carry out just such a strike, nuclear or otherwise? Then what? What happens the day after?
Practically no one is talking about that. And that makes this whole threat even more dangerous. It's as if the Bush administration believes that the day after they bomb Iran, everything will be over, except maybe for the happy campers in the streets of Tehran cheering and clamoring for the U.S. to bomb some more to help them change their regime. Maybe they really do believe that...
...For all sides, talk is crucial. Nuclear weapons - in anyone's hands - are a nightmare that should be abolished once and for all, as the now-fading Non-Proliferation Treaty anticipated so many years ago. Certainly Iran should abjure any search for nuclear weapons - but that's not going to happen alone. What we need - what we ALL need - is a weapons of mass destruction-free zone throughout the Middle East. So not only no nukes for Iran, but let's be sure Israel signs the NPT and places its unacknowledged but highly provocative Dimona arsenal of 200-400 high-density nuclear bombs under international supervision, and then allows the inspectors to destroy them. Let's be sure no country in the Middle East is running a chemical- or biological-weapons program - the poor countries' nuclear weapons substitute of choice and an unfortunate inevitability as long as Israel has a nuclear monopoly in the region.
And it’s way past time for the U.S. to make good on its own NPT obligations to move towards full and complete nuclear disarmament. As long as Washington laughs off that obligation, and officially rejects it, it is hard to imagine why any other countries should take seriously a U.S. demand that take nuclear weapons off their agenda.
Ironically enough the U.S. is already on record supporting just such a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. Article 14 of UN Security Resolution 687, that ended the 1991 Gulf War and imposed crippling sanctions on Iraq, states that disarming Iraq should be viewed as part of "establishing in the Middle East a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them."'www.commondreams.org
04-23-06, 08:07 PM newnickname 'Iran has the objective preconditions in terms of education, the place of women in social affairs, and in social aspirations (especially of the youth) to emulate in the foreseeable future the evolution of Turkey. The mullahs are Iran's past, not its future; it is not in our interest to engage in acts that help to reverse that sequence.
Serious negotiations require not only a patient engagement but also a constructive atmosphere. Artificial deadlines, propounded most often by those who do not wish the U.S. to negotiate in earnest, are counterproductive. Name-calling and saber rattling, as well as a refusal to even consider the other side's security concerns, can be useful tactics only if the goal is to derail the negotiating process.
The United States should join Britain, France and Germany, as well as perhaps Russia and China (both veto-casting U.N. Security Council members), in direct negotiations with Iran, using the model of the concurrent multilateral talks with North Korea. As it does with North Korea, the U.S. also should simultaneously engage in bilateral talks with Iran about security and financial issues of mutual concern.
It follows that the U.S. should be a signatory party to any quid pro quo arrangements in the event of a satisfactory resolution of the Iranian nuclear program and of regional security issues. At some point, such talks could lead to a regional agreement for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East - especially after the conclusion of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement - endorsed also by all the Arab states of the region. At this stage, however, it would be premature to inject that complicated issue into the negotiating process with Iran.
For now, our choice is either to be stampeded into a reckless adventure profoundly damaging to long-term U.S. national interests or to become serious about giving negotiations with Iran a genuine chance. The mullahs were on the skids several years ago but were given a new burst of life by the intensifying confrontation with the United States. Our strategic goal, pursued by real negotiations and not by posturing, should be to separate Iranian nationalism from religious fundamentalism.
Treating Iran with respect and within a historical perspective would help to advance that objective. American policy should not be swayed by the current contrived atmosphere of urgency ominously reminiscent of what preceded the misguided intervention in Iraq.' Zbigniew Brzezinski
04-24-06, 09:32 AM aminator2002 I know many people think that they will use the technology when they have it, but I have to wonder if it will make them gain a level of seriousness about their actions. There is nothing at all to gain by nuking a country. All other countries would counter attack with their own weapons. It's a stand off that we had for decades with the USSR. It's not good but there is almost no purpose to nukes. Let's say Iran nukes Israel. What is the response? Unfortunately it absolutely has to be taking out Iran. Completely. We all learned this in the Cold War. It sucks but it does seem to work. The real dangerous situation with nukes seems to be if the technology gets into rogue hands because then there is a lack of clear target.
I just can't help but think it might change things for the better because a country that is in the Nukes Club can actually sit at the negotiation table without sending their children to do suicide attacks. I think suicide attacks are more dangerous than any country with the bomb even though the potential for mass destruction is there. I think changing the fundamental way that the people of the Middle East think of their own country might actually help matters.
Pakistan hasn't nuked India yet and everyone was quite sure that they'd do so in the first year.
04-26-06, 10:05 AM newnickname 'Iran's business classes have friends in the country's powerful institutions. They fear the impact of sanctions and are calling for a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
Iran's largest reformist party, the Participation Front, has recently issued a statement urging President Ahmadinejad to stop all uranium enrichment activities.
Reports say that powerful figures including the former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani are working hard behind the scene to put pressure on Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to rein in the president.
They say Mr Ahmadinejad's confrontational approach has been backfiring. Opponents say the US has struggled to refer Iran to the Security Council for a long time, but with the Iranian president's help Washington got what they wanted in a few months.
The imposition of sanctions could make Mr Ahmadinejad's opponents even more vocal and precipitate a power struggle in Iran.
The ruling conservatives are already divided on how to run the country, especially on economic issues.
Moderate conservatives accuse Mr Ahmadinejad of following a populist agenda for short-term political gains and are unhappy that the hardliners are setting the political agenda.
Iran's political structure is complex and far from monolithic. The ruling clerics have not been able to establish a totalitarian state and there is a degree of freedom within the system.'news.bbc.co.uk
Moderate and sensible voices in both countries (i.e. anyone other than Ahmadinejad and Bush, and their supporters) should be heeded.
04-30-06, 03:00 PM newnickname "The impasse on Iran shows a lack of imagination on all sides. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite his irritating bombast, is not the sole proprietor of Iran Inc; there are enough ayatollahs, army commanders and secular politicians on the street to give him a hard time. Moreover, developing nuclear weapons is notoriously difficult and often shambolic: look at Libya and Iraq's programme that had to be ditched in 1991.
The fear is that if nobody else will take action to stop Iran getting the bomb, the Israelis will feel they must, and soon. This is why the Americans are planning a campaign: they don't want Israel going it alone. Tony Blair is silent, as he was in the last few weeks of the run-up to war in Iraq in March 2003, having decided much earlier than advertised that he would go in with the Americans.
For President Bush, non-action is no option - a view that will be hardened by reverses in the mid-term elections in November. If it means bringing the temple down around his, and our, ears, so be it. Dubya Agonistes."commentisfree.guardian.co.uk
So the UN says Ahmadinejad is in breach of the non-proliferation treaty (which, at least, Iran is a signatory to - India isn't) and he has said he doesn't give a damn. Political pressures seemt to be forcing the Presidents of Iran and the US to a showdown - but isn't it clear that a military strike against Iran is impractical, and that Iran is some way from getting The Bomb? They're both bluffing, aren't they?
05-01-06, 01:53 PM newnickname 'Iranian leaders have been signaling to Washington since late 2005 that Iran wanted direct negotiations with the United States on Tehran's nuclear programme and other outstanding issues between the two countries...
... Although Ahmedinejad did not say what Iran's conditions for talks are, the Iranian response to the U.S. proposal last November for bilateral talks on Iraq may be a good indication of what Tehran has in mind. When Iraqi President Jalal Talabani took the U.S. proposal to Tehran on a visit last November, in which he met Ahmedinejad, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, and other top leaders, he was told Iran would agree to talks on two conditions: they would remain private and they would involve all outstanding issues between the two countries...
...Some analysts familiar with the thinking of Iranian national security officials believe they have gone ahead with partial enrichment in order to position themselves for broader talks with the United States going beyond the nuclear issue.
"Enrichment has become a big bargaining chip," says Iranian journalist Najmeh Bozorgmehr, who has had access to top Iranian leaders in off the record interviews for the past several years. "They are producing facts on the ground that would give them leverage in negotiations with the United States."
Bozorgmehr, now a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, says the Iranians hope to get the removal of sanctions, security guarantees and guaranteed fuel supply in return for concessions on the fuel enrichment issue.
Journalist Praful Bidwai reported for IPS last week that government officials and other experts in Tehran told him there was "fairly broad agreement" that a compromise proposal on the nuclear issue and security guarantees and normalisation of U.S. relations with Iran could be negotiated.'Inter Press Service
05-08-06, 10:47 PM newnickname Maybe one thing would be for the President of the US to actually read any correspondence from the President of Iran before rejecting it...
'A surprise letter to the US president from Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not solve the growing nuclear dispute, US officials have said...
...Mr McClellan would also not confirm whether Mr Bush had personally read the letter, saying only: "I would just leave it at what I said: We've received it."news.bbc.co.uk
How could the Whitehouse be dumb enough to hand such a PR coup to the Iranian government? Unless of course, the Whitehouse wants to manufacture a crisis.
05-09-06, 02:20 AM Adi Well, maybe you can do with Iran what you've done with Brazil...
05-10-06, 07:42 AM bik74 Is there any way the entire contents of the letter be publicised ? It would be interesting to read it.
05-10-06, 08:14 AM Fourbrick2 Unfortunately it would appear to me that the U.S. government are set on attacking Iran, (or at least that part of it which contains the oil.)
I expect another outrage to be committed, either in the U.S. or Europe, which will be "traced" directly back to the Iranians. This will give the U.S. the reason for bombing them.
I hope that I am wrong.
05-10-06, 09:38 AM newnickname Why is Cheney doing his best to alienate the Russian government?
As if rallying fading public support for keeping more than 100,000 U.S. troops in a disintegrating Iraq and preparing the ground for a possible military attack on Iran were not enough, some influential hawks are now promoting a more confrontational stance against Russia and China, as well...
...At the same time, however, a more aggressive stance toward the two powers risks driving them further together in opposition to U.S. geo-strategic designs, particularly isolating Iran and asserting more control over the flow of oil and gas out of Central Asia and the Caucasus.
It could also revive trans-Atlantic tensions despite the convergence between the major western European powers and the United States at the Security Council over Iran. That unity could turn out to be fleeting, particularly if Washington fails to heed increasingly urgent pleas by its allies to offer the Islamic Republic security guarantees in exchange for a verifiable freeze on its nuclear programme.
"I don't see how antagonising (Russian President Vladimir) Putin at this particular moment will make it any easier for him to support you on Iran," said one Congressional foreign policy aide. "And I can't imagine that the Europeans think this is such a good idea at this moment either."www.ipsnews.net
05-10-06, 09:12 PM newnickname 'The trouble with big-stick diplomacy in this case is that its implied deterrence is implausible. There is no conceivable justification for a military attack on Iran when Bush's own intelligence chief, John Negroponte, puts a minimum of "five to 10 years" on its acquisition of weapons-grade plutonium. Bombing factories might impede this but not stop it from happening sooner or later, and would clearly induce Tehran to make that sooner. But then even Russia at its most paranoid and North Korea at its craziest never used nuclear bombs. They are not weapons or deterrents, merely status symbols. And America's acceptance of them in the hands of Pakistan, India and Israel is a gift to the xenophobic rabble-rousers of Tehran.
Washington can spend millions on pirate Tehran broadcasts, but moderate Iranians are crying to the west to stop bolstering Ahmadinejad. It is doing to him what it did to Saddam, putting him on television every night as a global champion of Islam. The one hope of curbing his rhetorical excesses is for his own people to rein him in, and that cannot happen when the west continues to make him regional hero number one. Bush seems unable to comprehend that his castigating a Muslim leader is not an insult but an accolade...
...There is, of course, one thing that Britain and America could do that would wholly disorientate Ahmadinejad and have him rushing troops to his borders. It would be a sudden end to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Such a decision would remove at a stroke the running theme of Iranian militancy. It would saddle Tehran with two unstable neighbours whose insurgents and revanchists would cause it, its allies and its surrogates no end of trouble. After a bit of initial crowing the next Iraq will be Ahmadinejad's nightmare. Unfortunately such a step seems too clever by half for the west's present leadership.'www.guardian.co.uk
05-11-06, 10:21 PM newnickname Some very specific suggestions about what Iran might do to reassure the world about its nuclear program:
'Iran would make an active contribution, provided that other countries with similar sensitive fuel cycle programs also do the same, to fixing the loopholes in the non-proliferation system and to developing a technically credible international control regime.
Iran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections.
Iran would address the question of preventing break-out from the NPT.
Iran would agree to negotiate with the IAEA and states concerned about the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment.
Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on enrichment limit of reactor grade uranium.
Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on the production of UF6 - uranium hexafluoride, which is used for enrichment - during the period of negotiation for the scope and timing of its industrial scale enrichment.
Iran and the IAEA would agree on terms of the continuous presence of inspectors in Iran to verify credibly that no diversion takes place in Iran.
Iran's readiness to welcome other countries to partner with Iran in a consortium provides additional assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program.'www.time.com
From "Hassan Rohani... ...representative of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran's former top nuclear negotiator".
05-16-06, 09:42 AM newnickname EU foreign ministers meeting Monday considered a package of enhanced incentives to induce Tehran to stop uranium enrichment, which many experts see as a first step toward producing nuclear weapons.
"We are prepared to work on a cooperation package and support Iran's development of a proliferation-proof civilian nuclear program," Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, said after the meeting.
She said the EU's new plan would contain three elements — economic assistance, political cooperation, and support for the civilian nuclear program.news.yahoo.com
05-16-06, 11:10 AM babthrower Will someone please tell me why the hell Iran should not have nuclear weapons? It is in a part of the world which has been invaded by the world's most powerful nation in a thinly disguised attempt to take over the world's supply of oil, so the next step for the U.S. to take is to invade Iran.
The aggressor, the U.S. and its ally Israel, have weapons of mass destruction. Why not the nation that needs defense?
If the U.N. were able to stand up to the invaders in the middle east, perhaps it could prevent U.S. aggression. But it isn't.
So countries like Iran, seeing what the U.S. has done to Iraq, needs the ability to threaten the aggressor in his own homeland. Otherwise they will surely fall, one by one, like a row of dominoes.
If you ask Bush why he has weapons of mass destruction he would undoubtedly say, certainly not for aggression, but as a deterrent only.
Why does the same standard not apply to Iran? Iran has a far less aggressive stance than has the U.S. Iran limits its posturing to those nations which border it, such as Turkey. And the Turks and Iranians have been fighting for millennia.
Look at the mess Bush has made in Iraq. The war that was intended to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq leaves them far worse off, due to the political upheaval, than they were under the U.S. former puppet Hussein. The U.S. cannot fix the mess it created in Iraq, which has become a pit into which American lives and dollars are thrown. Yet now Bush prepares to invade Iran.
It is time for the west to take a stand in order to prevent world war III. Only megalomaniacs like Bush, or religious fanatics imagine world war III winnable by anyone. Megalomaniacs, being insane, cannot imaging losing, they are on a permanent manic 'high'. And the only reason religious fanatics think it's winnable is because to them, 'winning' is to attain the end of the world. But sane people do not thus define 'winning'.
05-17-06, 03:27 PM bik74 Well said Bab. The only country to use nuclear weapons is ...... and the only country who every now and then talks about using nuclear weapon strategically is once again ....... No marks for answering the above correctly. I can understand some countires having nuclear weapons for deterrent only. But how many nuclear weapons do you need for deterrant ?
05-17-06, 05:35 PM DorianGreyed "Will someone please tell me why the hell Iran should not have nuclear weapons?"
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world. "As the Imam [the late Ayatollah Khomeini] said, 'Israel must be wiped off the map'… The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, October 26, 2005
That's why. It's bad enough that we have one man with "a mission" with nuclear weapons at his disposal in the world. Having another*, especially one who has stated the above, is too many. At this point, no reasonable person doubts that bush intended to attack Iraq, with all the information that has come out, and, I think it likely that, were his intentions known before either of the last two presidential elections, he would have never been elected. No one can change those elections now, but we have only 20 months until a new president takes office. How long will Ahmadinejad, with his stated intent of wiping "the state of Israel off the map" hold office?
*In Iran, the Supreme Leader of Iran is responsible for the delineation and supervision of "the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran". The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war. The president is the highest state authority after the Supreme Leader. I don't know what Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei's (the Supreme Leader) feelings are about Isreal, but I doubt that they differ from those of Ahmadinejad. In any case, Hoseini-Khamenei has been Supreme Leader since 1989, which implies that he, unlike bush, isn't subject to term limits.
05-17-06, 06:36 PM babthrower The establishment of the state of Israel was an act of aggression against the peoples of the region.
The West wanted a foothold in the middle east. Oil was even more crucial then than it is now, because now we have options for engine fuel, lubricants and power generation.
The West also wanted to ring the U.S.S.R. with bases. For example, there were U.S. missile sites in Turkey after W.W. II.
So they decided to "establish" the state of Israel, and protect it, and they took Palestinian land to do it with. There had not been anything like the state of Israel there for almost 2,000 years. Yet suddenly, the west discovered that it had a 'right' to be there.
Israel soon became a nuclear power, and has been a nuclear power ever since.
And the middle East has been a powderkeg.
Establishing Israel there based on Zionists' somewhat dicey claim that they had a right to the land because they had owned it 2,000 years ago (actually it belonged to the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago) makes about as much sense as saying that Spain should come and reclaim California because they used to own it and were driven out by the U.S. in 1898 by force of arms.
But what if the U.N. backed Spain's claim? And drove the Americans out of California, and gave it to Spain?
Couldn't happen. Spain has not the strength to recapture California, and the U.N. doesn't either. Not when faced with the might of the U.S.
Precisely. Because might makes right. The Palestinians could not hold the land against the western powers.
But now the U.S.S.R. is no longer a threat. So to make the American people, who are basically probably more fair and decent than the people of many other nations, accept American aggression in the middle East, the aggressors had to dream up a rationale, a threat, that would make the grab acceptable. They found it in the terrorist attack on the trade center.
The fanatical Muslim element only came to power when the middle east nations realized their minority rights would never receive fair play in the U.N.
If I have a large sliver embedded in the sole of my foot, and the irritation is making it hard for me to walk, and threatening to become a massive and life-endangering infection, I remove the foreign body. I do not punish the surrounding tissue.
The mighty U.S. military presence is the foreign body. It must be excised. The alternative is a massive life-endangering event called World War III.
05-17-06, 08:03 PM DorianGreyed I may be wrong about this, but weren't you the person who spoke of the question of who lives where in another thread, when I spoke of my grandfather and Macedonia? Then, you seemed to have the opinion tha we must accept things as they are today. At what point do history and current events part ways? (I should point out that the Jews were there before the Romans.) If it is impossible to determine who owned what land first, then shouldn't we deal with the status quo with regard to land? It seems to me that, rightly of wrongly, all international bodies, with the exception of pan-Muslim ones, recognize Israel's existence in approximately that location. Does that mean nothing?
Frankly, I have no answer to the question of who "owns" that part of the Near East. It is hard to decide who is right, the party that bought it contract-for-deed from God, or the party that has over 2000 years of squatter's rights. But allowing a party that has threatened to wipe another country, legal or illegal, off the map doesn't sound to me like a smart idea.
Having two (or more) countries nuking each other appears to be a very bad outcome to me. To carry on with your analogy of the injured foot, it seems to me that, given a choice between amputating a leg or having a limp, the limp doesn't seem so bad.
05-17-06, 09:46 PM bik74 So at the end of the day as assummed its all about saving Israel. I dont deny that all bodies recognise Israel (except for muslims). But to my knowledge all bodies/countires (excluding USA) have passed many resolutions (37)for various reasons agaisnt Israel all vetoed by USA. That certainly counts for nothing.
Living in new world, its all about looking after your own interest and not creating unneccesary enemies. All the non muslim countires have nothing to gain by not recognising Israel. Might is right. It is so astonishing that safeguarding the interest of Israel can easily be called the number one objective of USA. _______________________________________ In my person opinion Israel is now ' an enforced reality'. Iran should make nuclear weapons one way or another as that is the only thing that can guarantee its safety. Iran as mentioned before was first called an 'axis of evil'. A statement not quoted often. While Bush certainly has the intention of acting on his opinion (destroying the perceived satan), I honestly dont think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has the power to act on his statement (even with a nuclear bomb).
Nuclear Iran will not lead to a nuclear stand off but hopefully to a just resolution one day and some senses on both sides.
05-17-06, 10:01 PM DvdGStwrt I say we let them have the bomb and then gently remind them that we have thousands of bombs, on top of missiles that can swiftly carry those bombs right to their door step.
We did it with the USSR - We knew that they had the bomb; they knew that we had the bomb and through mutual knowing we came to love the bomb and keep track of our manners with one another.
I'd rather have Iran freely fizzing away and working their nuclear magic while we watch and count the number of ounces of fissile material is created than to have the unknown quantities that forbidding a nation to go nuclear will produce.
The Genie refuses to go back into the bottle – We can not unmake that discovery and we certainly can not actually prevent a nation or a powerful group from actually using that knowledge and becoming the first nuclear power on their block. We can, however, continue to make accords and treaties and even, in the case of Iran – lend a hand toward building a nuclear power plant or two to open up diplomatic channels and to demonstrate that our interests is not to prevent Iran (an acknowledged nation) having nuclear material but that we are honestly sincere that Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Bubblehead – Whatever -Terrorist groups do not have the means to get said materials.
Let us hope and pray that Iran is not using the Design Plans of Chernobyl – God help us if they are. To insure that they don’t make that mistake – we should be actively helping them attain clean SAFE nuclear power while building up their trust in us to willingly share the inventory lists of fissile material so we can keep score of where is what.
But I’m not the Leader of the Free World.
Enjoy the war that will undoubtedly arise from yet another political mess.
05-17-06, 10:29 PM DorianGreyed bik, I don't discount what bush has said, and many Americans wish he was never put in the position of being able to say it. I am also fully aware of the US's actions on the Security Council vis-a-vis resolutions against Israel, and do not defend them. However, to my knowledge, Israel has not threatened Iran or any other country with non-existence. That, above all else, is the difference, in my opinion. Israel has a right to exist; that has been decided upon over 50 years ago. Their location is a fait accompli. Were the situation reversed, and Iran, or any country or people, threatened by Israel or another country, I would speak out for the people or country that were threatened. I have already done so regarding the Kurds. (I have said many times on these boards that once Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds, he should have been assassinated.) My reasoning is quite simple. People have a right to exist, as does a nation, and no one has the right to threaten a people or a nation. Had I been alive, I would have spoken out for Poland when Russia and the German states were playing football with the land and people, just as I would have spoken out for the various Arab peoples who were under the Sultan. I spoke out for the ethnic Albanians when they were refugees from Kosovo, living in Macedonia, just as I would have spoken out for the Muslims in India in 1947.
I would love to see a just resolution of all the problems in the world, but a just resolution does not include the denial of a people's right to exist.
(If it makes you feel any better, bush scares me, too. I have long thought that he was a dangerous man.)
05-17-06, 10:47 PM bik74 I dont want to defend the statement made by the Iranian president as well. Though he said Israel ( & not jews).
Before the first iraq war one could have blamed the muslims for not negotiating. After the first iraq war, US & Israel had all the time and chances to make out a deal. They didnt cause they had no incentive to do so.
Peace has to be achieved that satisfies both sides. But during negotiations when one side has all the good cards , a just end will never be made. How things go forward I dont know. And while not being a prophetic person, I cannot guarantee what the Iranian president will do with nukes. But I still think the region will be better off either 'with a nucealr iran' or US troops leaving the region completely.
05-17-06, 11:21 PM DorianGreyed Since I think Iraq has to undergo a very painful civil war before it can truly form a nation (if, in fact, it can form one at all*), and that war is only somewhat delayed by the US presence, I feel that the sooner the US leaves, the better off all will be in the long run.
* I think that Iraq is in several ways similar to Yugoslavia. It was successful under a powerful dictator, but once that powerful man was gone, it seems destined to fragment. When Tito died in 1980, I told several friends that Yugoslavia would disintegrate within ten years. Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina started breaking away in 1990.
05-18-06, 02:30 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: ... weren't you the person ... [who thinks]... we must accept things as they are today[?]
I brought up Israel's plight in response to your quote from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I wanted to point out that the enmity against Israel does not arise out of a vacuum, but out of an injustice in 1948, which I like to think, given my age, is in what is generally thought of as 'modern times'. And not almost 3,000 years ago - or almost 2,000, if you want to date from the destruction of Jerusalem.
The Jews were there before the Romans? Yes, as a people. But not as a nation. They were not the aboriginal people, but immigrated from North Africa. The Jews were dominant in the area for less than a hundred years, in the time of David and Solomon (1004-928 B.C.). And it is to that brief time that their claim to the Promised Land dates.
After that they split into two areas - Israel and Judah. Before the Romans came, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, and Greeks under Alexander and his Macedonian/Hellenistic successors, had ruled the Jewish peoples in turn. Rome took it in 63 B.C. and after Rome fell, the Byzantines. Arabs ruled the area until after WWI, when Britain got control of Palestine and Jordan.
So each and every one of these powers has an equal or greater claim to the area of these various Semitic peoples as the Zionists have.
Israel was never a great and powerful empire, in a league with these. Israel's only importance was as the parent of Christianity. Judaism makes up only about .22% (that's point 22) of the world's religious adherents; Christianity makes up about 33%, Islam 21% of adherents world wide.
But Balfour was a Christian Zionist, and he was the one who started the ball rolling to restore a homeland for the Jews.
Not because of any principle of the rights of ethnic groups to a land they had once held, however briefly, but to bring about the End of Days to fulfil biblical prophecies.
But the deal was not consummated in Balfour's time (after WWI). It was held in abeyance, and then 'trotted out', along with the holocaust (which if you will recall was not perpetrated by Muslims, but by a Christian people), when the Western powers were looking for a foothold in the middle east. Conveniently, the Zionists became a cat's paw for the Western nations. But they really didn't care, because without the support of the West they could never hope to establish the state of Israel.
Israel was only the cat's paw of the Western powers. Israel is there because of Zionism, which is an extreme nationalistic view of only a minority of Jews worldwide. In fact a significant proportion of Jewish people reject Zionism completely.
The thrust of my post was: the U.S. should get out of the Middle East.
Here is a little information about the strange coalition between Jewish and Christian Zionists.
05-18-06, 10:48 AM newnickname
'President Bush's top advisers have recommended a broad new approach to dealing with North Korea that would include beginning negotiations on a peace treaty, even while efforts to dismantle the country's nuclear program are still under way, senior administration officials and Asian diplomats say.
Aides say Mr. Bush is very likely to approve the new approach, which has been hotly debated among different factions within the administration. But he will not do so unless North Korea returns to multinational negotiations over its nuclear program. The talks have been stalled since September.
North Koreans have long demanded a peace treaty, which would replace the 1953 armistice ending the Korean War.
For several years after he first took office, Mr. Bush vowed not to end North Korea's economic and diplomatic isolation until it entirely dismantled its nuclear program. That stance later softened, and the administration said some benefits to North Korea could begin to flow as significant dismantlement took place. Now, if the president allows talks about a peace treaty to take place on a parallel track with six-nation talks on disarmament, it will signal another major change of tactics.
The decision to consider a change may have been influenced in part by growing concerns about Iran's nuclear program.'www.nytimes.com
Prime minister says unilateral action not being considered Sunday, May 21, 2006; Posted: 5:34 p.m. EDT (21:34 GMT)
ASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran is only months away from joining the club of nations that can make a nuclear weapon, Israel's prime minister said in a recent interview.
"The technological threshold is very close," Ehud Olmert said on CNN's "Late Edition" in an interview taped Thursday and broadcast Sunday.
"It can be measured by months rather than years."
Asked whether he believes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would halt his nation's nuclear-enrichment program under international pressure, Olmert said, "I prefer to take the necessary measures to stop it, rather than to find out later that my indifference was so dangerous." - CNN -------- I trust Israel's intelligence more tha
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
A story authored by a prominent U.S. neo-conservative regarding new legislation in Iran allegedly requiring Jews and other religious minorities to wear distinctive colour badges circulated around the world this weekend before it was exposed as false.
The article by a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal, Iranian-American Amir Taheri, was initially published in Friday's edition of Canada's National Post, which ran alongside the story a 1935 photograph of a Jewish businessman in Berlin with a yellow, six-pointed star sewn on his overcoat, as required by Nazi legislation at the time. The Post subsequently issued a retraction.
Taheri's story, however, was reprinted by the New York Post, which is owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, and picked up by the Jerusalem Post, which also featured a photo of a yellow star from the Nazi era over a photo of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Another neo-conservative publication, the New York Sun, also noted the story Monday, claiming that the specific report that special badges were required by the legislation had been "incorrect". At the same time, however, the Sun quoted two Iranian-American foes of the Islamic Republic as suggesting that dress requirements for religious minorities were still being considered by Iran's ruling circles. It offered no evidence to support that assertion.
The story, which was also noted in the Australian press, comes at a moment of rising tensions between Iran and both Israel and the United States over Tehran's nuclear programme which, according to the latter two, is designed to produce nuclear weapons. Both the U.S. and Israel have suggested that they may take military action against nuclear-related targets in Iran unless ongoing diplomatic efforts to freeze Tehran's programme bears fruit.
Juan Cole, president of the U.S. Middle East Studies Association (MESA), described the Taheri article and its appearance first in Canada's Post as "typical of black psychological operations campaigns", particularly in its origin in an "out of the way newspaper that is then picked up by the mainstream press" - in this case, the Jerusalem Post and the New York Post. A former U.S. intelligence official described the article's relatively obscure provenance as a "real sign of (a) disinformation operation"...http://www.ipsnews.net ****************************************************** 05-24-06, 02:00 PM bik74 Bush and the Israeli PM have met and I hear Bush is going to UK on thursday. No secrets.. anybody can guess what the meetings are for. 'what to do about iran ?'. I do not have a good feeling.
The nuclear deal with india, people say had a special motive. India should then withdraw from the gas pipeline deal , from iran through Pakistan to India. So India too is in a fix as what to do. Unfortunately I think people like us can do nothing but pray.
05-25-06, 01:05 AM newnickname '...U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said government experts have exerted mounting pressure on the Bush administration to reply to the letter, seconding public urgings from commentators and former officials. "The content was wacky and, from an American point of view, offensive. But why should we cede the high moral ground, and why shouldn't we at least respond to the Iranian people?" said an official who has been pushing for a public response.
Analysts, including American specialists on Iran, emphasized that the contents of the letter are less significant than its return address. No other Iranian president had attempted direct contact with his U.S. counterpart since the countries broke off diplomatic relations after student militants overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Iranian analysts said Ahmadinejad's familiar list of grievances on Iraq, Israel and terrorism was designed largely for domestic consumption. CIA analysts and experts on Iran within the government said it also could be interpreted as an attempt to articulate points for possible discussion with Washington.
"There is no question in my mind that there has been for some time a desire on the part of the senior Iranian leadership to engage in a dialogue with the United States," said Paul Pillar, who was the senior Middle East intelligence analyst with the CIA until last fall.
"Much stranger first steps have led to dialogues than this letter. And as weird as the letter may be, if the Iranians want to begin discussions based on the theme of righteousness, that's something we should not be afraid to engage on," Pillar said. "We have pretty strong arguments about justice and righteousness of our own, so we should not shy away from that."' www.washingtonpost.com
05-25-06, 09:47 AM newnickname Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and to pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States...
...But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was "literally a few days" between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington.
Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relations professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that "senior analysts" from Iran told him in July 2005 that "the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be achieved between the U.S. and Iran".
The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran's Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year's election.
However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. "Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it," he said in an interview with IPS last month.www.ipsnews.net
There is surely, at least, potential for constructive talks - on the Churchillian principle of 'jaw-jaw' being better than 'war war'.
The principle doesn't apply, I guess, if you actually, for whatever reason, want to go to war -
The White House yesterday ruled out previously authorised direct talks between Tehran and the US ambassador in Baghdad, which were to have focused on the situation in Iraq. The move marks a hardening of the Bush administration's position, despite pressure from the international community to enter into direct dialogue with Iran.
A White House official said that although the US envoy had originally been granted a mandate for talks with Iran, "we have decided not to pursue it."www.guardian.co.uk
05-31-06, 10:03 AM newnickname 'The US says it is ready to join direct multilateral talks with Iran on its nuclear programme if Tehran suspends disputed nuclear activities.' Breaking news - bbc.co.uk
06-01-06, 10:10 AM newnickname 'Iran's foreign minister has said his country is ready to talk to the US - but insisted that it will continue with uranium enrichment...
...The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says it is clear that Iran is keen to hold talks with the US, but that it has always insisted on its sovereign right to produce nuclear fuel, and will not want to be seen to have been bribed into giving up those rights.
Mr Mottaki's statement is not a complete dismissal of the US offer, and leaves Tehran some room for manoeuvre, she says.'news.bbc.co.uk
It's like watching two drunks in a bar, both having secretly decided they don't really want to fight, trying to work out how to stop squaring up to each other without loss of face.
07-08-06, 07:10 PM newnickname 'Iran's chief nuclear negotiator says he feels positive about an incentives package agreed by world powers on Tehran's nuclear programme.
But Ali Larijani said Iran should not be given a deadline for its response to the offer, which is aimed at suspending Tehran's uranium enrichment work.'Iran 'positive' on nuclear offer
10-09-06, 09:13 PM newnickname 'The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.
War with Iran—a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East—is probable by the end of the Bush administration. It could begin in as little as three weeks. This administration, claiming to be anointed by a Christian God to reshape the world, and especially the Middle East, defined three states at the start of its reign as “the Axis of Evil.” They were Iraq, now occupied; North Korea, which, because it has nuclear weapons, is untouchable; and Iran..." www.truthdig.com
Is it possible to see a campaign of war-mongering, exaggeration and lies, leading up to a "quick and effective" strike against Iran? What's going on? Could Bush & Co really be about to make the same mistake, in the same way, again?
11-19-06, 02:02 PM newnickname 'A classifed draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said...' www.afp.com
11-22-06, 09:38 AM newnickname 'President George W. Bush could choose military action over diplomacy and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities next year, political analysts in Washington agree.
"I think he is going to do it," John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a military issues think tank, told AFP.
"They are going to bomb WMD facilities next summer," he added, referring to nuclear facilities Iran says are for peaceful uses and Washington insists are really intended to make nuclear bombs, or weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
"It would be a limited military action to destroy their WMD capabilities" added the analyst, believing a US military invasion of Iran is not on the table.'US Could Bomb Iran Nuclear Sites in 2007: Analysts
Another quick and effective pre-emptive strike, which will be successfully concluded in a matter of days?
11-22-06, 10:10 AM DorianGreyed "Another quick and effective pre-emptive strike, which will be successfully concluded in a matter of days?"
It will be a slam dunk. 12-17-06, 12:03 PM newnickname 'Friday's main battleground was Tehran City Council, where Ahmadinejad supporters competed against backers of a more moderate conservative, Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf.
Final results for Tehran are not expected until Tuesday but partial tallies reported by Iranian news agencies showed Qalibaf's group dominating with about nine of the 15 seats.
The Iraq Study Group suggested that the cooperation of Iran and Syria is necessary to clearing up the mess in Iraq. Bush is going the other way, it seems.
01-16-07, 10:19 AM newnickname 'The Iraqi government is moving to solidify relations with Iran, even as the United States turns up the rhetorical heat and bolsters its military forces to confront Tehran's influence in Iraq.
Iraq's foreign minister, responding to a U.S. raid on an Iranian office in Irbil in northern Iraq last week, said Monday that the government intended to transform similar Iranian agencies into consulates. The minister, Hoshyar Zebari, also said the government planned to negotiate more border entry points with Iran.
The U.S. military is still holding five Iranians detained in Thursday's raid. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said records seized in the raid and statements made by the detainees showed that at least some of them worked for Iran's intelligence service.
"I don't think there is any disagreement on the fact that these folks that we have captured are foreign intelligence agents in this country, working with Iraqis to destabilize Iraq and target coalition forces that are here at Iraq's request," Casey said Monday.
Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, added, "We are going after their networks in Iraq."
Iraqis, who have echoed Tehran's calls for the U.S. to release the five men, say the three-way standoff that has ensued reveals more about American meddling in Iraqi affairs than about Iranian influence.
"We, as Iraqis, have our own interest," Zebari said in an interview with The Times. "We are bound by geographic destiny to live with" Iran, adding that the Iraqi government wanted "to engage them constructively."'www.latimes.com
'It always gets a little cozy when Dick Cheney goes on Fox News...
...To the extent that Chris Wallace played tough, it was only to ask Cheney to attack Iran.
“Can you pledge that, before you and the President leave office, you will take care of the threat of Iran?”
And Cheney responded, “I think we’re working right now, today, as we speak, on key elements of that problem.”
Cheney said, “Iran is fishing in troubled waters,” adding that “The threat that Iran represents is growing, it’s multi-dimensional, and it is, in fact, of concern to everybody in the region.”
And Cheney twice mentioned the previously unmentionable word oil, raising the specter of a “nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world’s supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy.”
Cheney thus made it clear that by the time Chris Wallace comes back to the Cheney household next Christmas or the year after, the U.S. will be at war with Iran.'Chris Wallace Softballs Dick Cheney
01-16-07, 01:53 PM FredPuli 90% of Iranians are of the Shia branch of Islam. The new Iraqi government is Shia dominated.Iraq is predominantly Shi'ite. Saddam was a Sunni. Why then would the Iraqis not regard Iranians as friends? The Iraqi government has shown a marked reluctance to act against Shia militias. The legislature has over 30 members who are from al Sadr's side, he of the 'Mahdi Army' Shi'ite militia.In short the picture is of a government which has the appearance of having a hidden agenda and that agenda is not for political or inter-sectarian peace.
Could they really be trying to 'sex up' flimsy evidence as justification for another war?
01-18-07, 09:48 AM newnickname 'Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.
Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.
Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.
But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.
The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest authorities.
In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members.
One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.
"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.
"But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."
Observers say the Iranian offer as outlined nearly four years ago corresponds pretty closely to what Washington is demanding from Tehran now...'
01-18-07, 11:29 AM Valor D Ya know...if not for all of the fools who are actually serious about this, it might just be laughable.
So, let's just break this down simply, shall we...
According to Sarai, the U.S. has 10,000 Nuclear bombs- by far, more than all the other Nations stockpiles of Nukes combined.
And, you want us to be worried about...some little third world country maybe having one?
Um...yeah...okay...sure.
Am I the only one who sees something terribly wrong with this picture?
The only country I'm truly scared of at this point, is the one with enough "WMD" Nuclear bombs to melt the entire planet. And, that would be the U.S. of A.
Duh! Roll Eyes
01-27-07, 07:38 AM Lighteningrodd Here is an update I found in the news...
01-28-07, 12:20 PM newnickname 'The United Nations nuclear chief has called for a "timeout" in the showdown over Iran's nuclear ambitions, with the UN suspending sanctions and Tehran halting uranium enrichment at the same time.
"Iran should stop enriching uranium and the international community should take a timeout from implementing sanctions," Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in Switzerland.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, ElBaradei proposed a face-saving solution in which the two steps take place simultaneously instead of in sequence.
He added that an escalation of the crisis, and possible war, must be avoided, in comments reported to AFP at IAEA headquarters in Vienna.
"We need to reverse course because we are heading into a crash course," ElBaradei told reporters. "The idea that there's a military solution is absolutely bonkers."' Agence France Presse Unfortunately, Dick Cheney, who seems to be pushing for the military option, is also "absolutely bonkers".
02-01-07, 11:22 PM newnickname
'Senior European policy-makers are increasingly worried that the US administration will resort to air strikes against Iran to try to destroy its suspect nuclear programme...
...The Bush administration will shortly publish a dossier of charges of alleged Iranian subversion in Iraq. "Iran has steadily ramped up its activity in Iraq in the last three to four months. This applies to the scope and pace of their operations. You could call these brazen activities," a senior US official said in London yesterday...'
Oh, no. Not another dossier. Will it include mention of the Iranian equivalents of aluminum tubes and African yellowcake? Will Powell be called back to deliver it?
02-03-07, 07:22 PM newnickname 'Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release — most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.
"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday...'Los Angeles Times
02-07-07, 09:48 AM newnickname 'The supreme irony of President George W. Bush's campaign to blame Iran for the sectarian civil war in Iraq, as well as attacks on U.S. forces, is that the Shiite militias who started to drive the Sunnis out of the Baghdad area in 2004 and thus precipitated the present sectarian crisis did so with the support of both Iran and the neoconservative U.S. war planners...' www.ipsnews.net
02-11-07, 01:26 PM newnickname 'The US military has accused the "highest levels" of Iran's government of supplying increasingly sophisticated roadside bombs to Iraqi insurgents...
...US claims the bombs were smuggled from Iran cannot be independently verified. The US officials, speaking off camera on condition of anonymity, said EFPs had also injured more than 620 US personnel since June 2004...
...The BBC's Jane Peel attended the briefing in Baghdad, at which all cameras and recording devices were banned.
Examples of the allegedly smuggled weapons were put on display, including EFPs, mortar shells and rocket propelled grenades which the US claims can be traced to Iran.
"The weapons had characteristics unique to being manufactured in Iran... Iran is the only country in the region that produces these weapons," an official said...' news.bbc.co.uk
Is that it? Is that the 'briefing' or 'dossier' they've been promising? Weapons which were not allowed to be photographed, which look like they're Iranian? Or maybe Russian, or Chinese... Iran being the only country in that region to make them that way. Unsupported allegations about the 'highest levels' of Iranian government being involved?
How lame. Are people really going to fall for the warmongering hype again?
02-11-07, 03:30 PM FredPuli So Iranian-made and supplied weaponry has killed 170 Americans has it? Accepted. Now who made and supplied the stuff that killed the circa three thousand others?
As an attempt to explain contiung and increasing failure, or to shift blame, this is a poor effort.
Somehow it is not surprising that elements in Iran, even at the highest level, have been helping those who would kill invading Americans.They make take the view that if Americans are evil enough to invade another country at all, let alone without any valid reason, then America should face the consequences and that those who would drive the Americans out deserve all the help they can get. That said , the help is pretty minimal, isn't it?
Perhaps it would be best not to ask whether the US or Britain has ever supplied arms to those who are opposed to some regime or government or has helped some bad regime to kill its opponents. For all we know our countries might even have supplied a dictator like Saddam or done something has bad as help the Taliban. Wink
02-11-07, 06:07 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: How lame. Are people really going to fall for the warmongering hype again?
For many such as Johny, Scotty (no offence intended)..... answer is plain and simple .YES. Others no. But I do think Bush and his co conspirators, will be able to do as they believe, depanding on their calcualtions. Nuclear Iran is not an option for them.
02-11-07, 06:22 PM bik74 There is something I would like to add however. Watching NGC and what Saddam was doing in Iraq, I now believe removing Saddam was a very good thing, and perhaps now I do wish USA a little success. Even though more than half of the genocide which Saddam did, was with knowledge and indirect help of USA. Its all about ones true intentions. If USA is genuine about helping Iraq, I do wish them all the best. I really do. But if its all about oil, getting Iran , I wish that every US solder should suffer the same fate as Saddam the devil.
02-11-07, 06:59 PM hippolips
quote: Originally posted by bik74:
But if its all about oil, getting Iran , I wish that every US solder should suffer the same fate as Saddam the devil.
..............................................
Hi Bik:
There is really only one reason that the U.S. would attack Iran.
The Neocons and the Zionists ,in the U.S., are scared spitless that if Iran would get the Bomb ,the very first thing they would do is to use it to destroy Israel.
That's the real reason the U.S. might attack Iran.
hippolips
02-11-07, 11:12 PM newnickname
quote: ...the very first thing they would do is to use it to destroy Israel.
...which would mean immediate nuclear retaliation against Iran. Deterrence was held to be good enough to keep the (nuclear) peace throughout the cold war. The idea that Iran would immediately bomb Israel on building a bomb must rest on the assumption that the people in power in Iran are all suicidal maniacs.
Chirac was criticised for saying that the danger is not so much Iran having a bomb, but of nuclear proliferation in the area. But he was right.
It seems that people are happy to accept that North Korea - ruled by a nutcase with a much stronger grip on government than the Iranian president - can be contained. But Bush & Co - maybe looking to double up their Iraq gamble - are saying that Iran has to be bombed or invaded despite not even having nuclear weapons yet.
Another possible reason the US might attack Iran is because the administration is in a hole, and thinks that a show of strength in the form of airstrikes against Iran - a kind of Hail Mary pass - will save them. They don't seem to have learned any lesson about the unpredictable consequences of "it'll be a cakewalk" military actions.
02-12-07, 10:05 AM newnickname Talking to Iran, hoping to strengthen the moderates...
'The European Union agreed on Monday to implement U.N. sanctions on Iran while holding the door open to new talks with Tehran...
...Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday: "We shy away from any kind of conflict." On Sunday, he pledged to pursue Iran's nuclear agenda but also said Tehran was ready for talks. These were put on hold last year as Iran pressed ahead with its nuclear program in defiance of international calls.
Those talks collapsed after Larijani hinted to Solana Iran could consider a two-month suspension while incentives talks went on, only to withdraw the proposal after apparently having his wings clipped by Tehran hardliners, EU diplomats said then.
But some analysts say Iran may be more ready for a deal now after moderates, accusing Ahmadinejad of a confrontational course that provoked sanctions and could isolate Iran abroad, battered Ahmadinejad's hardline allies in recent elections...' ca.news.yahoo.com
And talking up scant evidence (hoping for war?)...
'[The weapons] are said to be provided by Iran in kit form and to be smuggled across the often-open border.
However the officials who presented the evidence could not make a direct link to Iran.
"The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments," stated the New York Times.
They did make much of the detention in Irbil of five Iranians who were said to be members of the Quds force of the Iranian revolutionary Guards.
The Quds (the word means Jerusalem) force was said by the US officials to be controlled directly by the "highest levels of the Iranian government".
That last statement is significant in that the US is now making a charge against the Iranian government itself, not just against its agents.
Against the inference that this all comes from Iran is the concept that Iraqis themselves would be capable of copying a design and therefore do not need to get bombs from Iran.
And there have been a number of news reports over the last year expressing scepticism, even among military personnel, about the link to Iran.
The Washington Post reported last October that British troops in the south doubted the claim.
A year ago, the London Times said that British officers in Basra had stopped making any such claim, saying only that the technology matched bomb-making found elsewhere in the Middle East, including Lebanon and Syria.'news.bbc.co.uk
02-12-07, 02:41 PM hippolips [QUOTE]Originally posted by newnickname
And talking up scant evidence (hoping for war?)...
'[The weapons] are said to be provided by Iran in kit form and to be smuggled across the often-open border.
However the officials who presented the evidence could not make a direct link to Iran.
"The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments," stated the New York Times.
.................................................
Hi NewNik:
If Bush wants to go to war with Iran who's going to stop him???
Not our Senate for sure,they couldn't even get a NONbinding resolution passed regarding Iraq.
We will now watch as the House of Representatives does the same thing this week.
When our elected officials can't stop Bush...who can???
The people don't want this war...our elected officials don't care.
Where do we go from here???
hippolips
02-12-07, 06:22 PM newnickname Well, I wouldn't start from here. Hey, we told you guys not to elect him. Twice.
02-12-07, 09:40 PM newnickname Wait a minute. Apart from the sabre-rattling, could the US admistration actually be doing something effective..?
Meanwhile, a deal seems possible over North Korea's nuclear weapons. Why? Could it be because the Bush administration bigwigs, with their grandiose or black-and-white ideas, have been otherwise occupied, leaving some career diplomats to quietly get on with solving things?
02-14-07, 12:12 PM newnickname [i]'Another reason that analysts are skeptical about the new US emphasis on Iran as a key enemy of US troops in Iraq is that the vast majority of US casualties have taken place in areas controlled by the Sunni insurgency, not by the Shi'ite militias who are closely linked to Iran.
According to data compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (icasualties.org), a nonprofit group that tracks US deaths, a staggering 60 percent or more of US deaths have occurred in areas where Sunni insurgents are active. Those insurgents are believed to receive much of their funding and weapons from private donors in Sunni Arab countries, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, not Iran. Only 4 percent of US casualties have taken place in Shi'ite controlled areas in the provinces, while about a quarter of total US fatalities have taken place in Baghdad, where both Shi'ites and Sunnis fighters operate.
That data goes against the assertion on Sunday by a US official that "Iran is a significant contributor to attacks on coalition forces."
"It seems to be a relatively small segment of anti-US activity," said Kenneth Katzman , a Middle East analyst with the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress. "Even if this activity were to completely stop, that would not materially affect the threat to US troops." ' Boston Globe
You can see why they wanted to put off publishing the 'dossier'. They can't even all read from the same propaganda sheet.
02-14-07, 09:43 PM DorianGreyed This really has a simple explanation. The officials at the Baghdad briefing were reading from next Sunday's script. Remember, these guys aren't trained actors. They're doing the best they can under the circumstances.
02-21-07, 07:32 PM newnickname 'Hillary Mann Leverett, the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs under the Bush administration from 2001 to 2004, until she left the administration, has issued a sober warning to the public concerning Bush's intentions with Iran.
In an interview on CNN, on February 12, she accused the Bush administration of "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict" from Iran as a pretext to justify "limited strikes" against the country's crucial nuclear and military infrastructures, as opposed to "an all-out invasion like what happened with Iraq." (1)
Her warning comes a day after sources revealed to Newsweek that "a second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf" and "that a third carrier will likely follow" to replace one of the strike carriers already in the Gulf. In retaliation, "Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week in a highly publicized test." (2)
When asked what the Bush administration should do in its confrontation with Iran, Leverett suggested that "we should do what Nixon and Kissinger did with China in the early 1970s. We should respond positively, [and] constructively to Iranian overtures, to enter into comprehensive talks with Iran and to strike a grand bargain.
Leverett continued, "A grand bargain would mean we would have to make some concessions, and it would mean the Iranians would have to make some important concessions. But at the end of the day I think there is a path. The Iranians have put this on the table before."
Confronted with the question of why the Bush administration is seeking to lure Iran into attacking, Leverett responded vaguely that it is a part of Bush's broader agenda for the Middle East to bring about a "democratization... peace and stability", to the region.
Leverett is joined by a growing consensus of current and former US government, intelligence and military Officials who accuse the administration of trying to spark another unnecessary and unfounded war in the Middle East for their own self-interests...' Former Bush Officials Accuse White House of Trying to Provoke Iran
To answer the original post - Cheney should be sent somewhere very far off with no phones, (hunting maybe) for a couple of months, and Christopher Hill should be allowed to negotiate a deal. Bush could chop wood at is ranch, or trade insults with Ahmadinejad, or whatever - who would care, as long as some adult realists were allowed to actually try to resolve the situation.
02-22-07, 06:49 AM Lighteningrodd Best way to deal with Iran is to drop a bomb or two on them. Like what we dropped on Japan to end WW II.
GIVE 'EM HELL HARRY!!! Roll Eyes
02-22-07, 07:05 AM Fourbrick2 "Best way to deal with Iran is to drop a bomb or two on them. Like what we dropped on Japan to end WW II.
GIVE 'EM HELL HARRY!!! Roll Eyes "
A much better idea would be to drop a couple at N 38.15.6 W.88.15.27
The result would increase the average I.Q. of the rest of America.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Originally posted by Lighteningrodd: Best way to deal with Iran is to drop a bomb or two on them. Like what we dropped on Japan to end WW II.
GIVE 'EM HELL HARRY!!!
But have you thought of the long- term consequences? Every car in America seems to be Japanese. Surely you don't want everything made or sold there to be Iranian? ******************************************* 02-23-07, 10:25 AM newnickname 'At the heart of the debate are accusations - spearheaded by the US - that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.
"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations said.'
quote: Best way to deal with Iran is to drop a bomb or two on them.
It's difficult to tell whether that's meant seriously or not. After the bomb or two, what do you think would happen?
In the United Kingdom, two generals have just asserted that attacking Iran would constitute "pure madness."
If Bush reads the link that's it. He's definitely going in: the author is from Le Figaro, a French national newspaper Big Grin Happily we have been told, have we not, that the President does not read the news ?
02-25-07, 12:41 PM Kendor I've been avoiding this thread because the whole thing just ticks me off. But honestly, here's what I feel the US should do:
We should tell the international community to go to the place spelled with hockey sticks, and let them deal with Iran on their own. We're sittin' this one out. But may allah help the rest of the world if Iran tries to invade any country that starts with an "I", an "A", or a "P".
02-27-07, 03:46 PM FredPuli Wiser heads prevail. After the Baker commission advised it and Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright both told Congress recently that the US should engage in talks, unconditionally, with Iran, Syria and other countries in the region, guess what?
Not that the US is going to talk to Iran or Syria directly, you understand Wink That would be a loss of face for the Administration. No, the US just happens to want to be present at a place where the representatives of these countries just happen to be. Anyway, it's not an American plan. It's all the plan of the Iraq government, so that's quite different. What the Iraqis do is entirely unaffected by anything the US might want.
So, if there is a diplomatic resolution, that will be something which was not achieved with the consent or overt wish of the US government, we suppose Big Grin
03-02-07, 06:22 PM newnickname More on those talks...
What happened? Did the grown-ups finally take over from the neo-con maniacs? The article suggests, 'the administration was actually taken by surprise by the initiative (and self-interest) of the government in Baghdad that it is so quick to denigrate as incompetent. One can only imagine the backing and filling is also designed to cover differences in the administration between the evidence-based approach to policy at the State Department and the remaining true believers at the NSC.'
03-02-07, 07:00 PM FredPuli British forces in Afghanistan 7,700 (more than we have in Iraq Wink ) including the number, in effect, switched from Iraq to there. US forces 26,000.
US forces in Iraq are soon to be c 150,000 including a surge which is itself of a number almost that of the US presence in Afghanistan.
What's this strange idea that the Americans have got themselves bogged down in Iraq and that the real problems and the real areas of combat in this so-called War on Terror should be found, are found, in Afghanistan? Roll Eyes
03-03-07, 03:27 AM SeattleRon all of you need to do is just shutup. What about Iran? Well what about it?\ We'll never attack Iran, we should have never been involved in the Middle East anyway. The only reason why we are over there is to show some force. Business is Bidness....
Do we wanna make some money or what? Then lets get some skrilla, so some people gotta die right? It's all about the CASH......
What about Iran, What about Iraq, What about syria, WHAT ABOUT AFRICA...... Where is trhe money at???? Where is it?
Unless you show me difrent, the government is nothing more than a money making machine. Those are the facts..
