WAS COVERT ATTEMPT TO NUKE IRAN FOILED BY LEAK?

blatham wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
thanks blatham you cheered me up a bit

...not much

Then let me say a bit more.

In an interview in the recent GQ with Colin Powell, he points out that the notion the western world sits on the precipice (from Islamist extremism) is extremely silly and a fear-mongering trick. One might wish he'd voiced this earlier but it demonstrates that there are senior pentagon/government types, even if lifelong Republicans, who are aware of the extremism that marks the present powers and their rhetoric. Powell is by no means alone in this.

Even if there is a change of government and change of heart, the fact remains America is addicted to oil, oil that is running out, oil for which there is no obvious alternative and oil that is increasingly concentrated in the middle east. I think there is a struggle between the west and middle east govts doing our bidding on the one hand, and the muslim peoples of the area, for control of the region's hydrocarbon resources. I know that sounds simplistic but I really do think the struggle for oil and gas is at the root of it.

0 Replies

steve

I think you're quite right (with the added proviso of affinity/support for Israel).

And from a realistic or practical perspective, the US and other western governments, plus china and india and pakistan etc MUST direct efforts towards stability of oil production and distribution - just for their societies to continue functioning. I don't think this situation is inherently immoral any moreso than concern about water supplies for example.

But this doesn't have to mean war and certainly not nukes.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

steve

I think you're quite right (with the added proviso of affinity/support for Israel).

And from a realistic or practical perspective, the US and other western governments, plus china and india and pakistan etc MUST direct efforts towards stability of oil production and distribution - just for their societies to continue functioning. I don't think this situation is inherently immoral any moreso than concern about water supplies for example.

But this doesn't have to mean war and certainly not nukes.

Well it would be nice if we shared out whats left in a civilised manner.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

blatham wrote:
steve

I think you're quite right (with the added proviso of affinity/support for Israel).

And from a realistic or practical perspective, the US and other western governments, plus china and india and pakistan etc MUST direct efforts towards stability of oil production and distribution - just for their societies to continue functioning. I don't think this situation is inherently immoral any moreso than concern about water supplies for example.

But this doesn't have to mean war and certainly not nukes.
Well it would be nice if we shared out whats left in a civilised manner.

Yes, indeed.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
blatham wrote:
steve

I think you're quite right (with the added proviso of affinity/support for Israel).

And from a realistic or practical perspective, the US and other western governments, plus china and india and pakistan etc MUST direct efforts towards stability of oil production and distribution - just for their societies to continue functioning. I don't think this situation is inherently immoral any moreso than concern about water supplies for example.

But this doesn't have to mean war and certainly not nukes.
Well it would be nice if we shared out whats left in a civilised manner.

Yes, indeed.

But do you really think we will? Surely history is littered with examples of might asserting right.

0 Replies

I guess it isn't best thought of as a matter of black/white. We used to draw and quarter folks. Progress in social matters is part of this story too. We managed, over the period of my lifetime (I'm a year from 60) to avoid another world war and the use of nukes. We can be sane and our institutions can work.

0 Replies

blatham and Steve41oo
The United States would not use nuclear weapons on anyone imo. Steve41oo, I hope you didn't believe that movie.

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

blatham and Steve41oo
The United States would not use nuclear weapons on anyone imo. Steve41oo, I hope you didn't believe that movie.

As a matter of fact the United States is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons. Of course I didnt believe the movie. No one has bright yellow skin, a huge pile of blue hair and only 4 digits.

0 Replies

Steve41oo
In regards to the nukes, I mean now or in the future. I am glad you didn't believe that movie because some people actually do.

0 Replies

steve

You'll want to read Juan Cole here...
http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/one-ring-to-rule-them-wholesale.html

0 Replies

fascinating article Bernie thanks very much.

0 Replies

my plezh oor

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The neoconservatives may have decided that nukes are necessary. There have been reports that the facilities are very protected, perhaps making them immune from a nonnuke attack.

We can certainly take the bunker at Natanz with conventional bombs (so can Israel), and that's the main target.

The tunnel into the mountain outside Isfahan would require a nuke. But if it were decided that we could bypass that tunnel, there would be no problem taking out the rest of Iran's offending facilities.

I'm guessing we'll hit Iran about February.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

and what do you think advocate yes or no?

If we were to nuke Iran, it would be with a nuclear bunker buster bomb. These missiles wouldn't be used.

0 Replies

There is an excellent chance of terrible fallout should we bomb Iran. That country has always retaliated when hit, and it would hit US and Israeli interests wherever it could. It could hit oil facilities and shipping, which might cause a recession.

Our current administration would not consider such matters.

0 Replies

On the original report that nuclear bombs had been transported by air illegally across the USA, I read last week that four senior USAF staff had been disciplined for serious breaches in procedure.

I can't find the report to supply a link, though. Maybe you've covered that already and I missed it.

0 Replies

It was something I read. I believe it was by a political analyst. Considering the firings, I guess the person was wrong.

I just saw an analyst on TV who said she is utterly convinced that the neocon administration planned to attack Iran, part of the axis of evil, after disposing of Iraq. The plan was made before we got mired down in Iraq. So I guess we should not be surprised that, based on Cheney's recent statement on anti-Iran action, the neocons have not given up on making the attack.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

There is an excellent chance of terrible fallout should we bomb Iran. That country has always retaliated when hit, and it would hit US and Israeli interests wherever it could. It could hit oil facilities and shipping, which might cause a recession.

Our current administration would not consider such matters.

Whatever Iran does, do it back to them 10 times over. We smashed the belligerence out of the Axis in WWII. We can smash it out of the axis of evil as well.

0 Replies

Sounds a bit Hitlerian. Let's talk to Iran and avoid war.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Whatever Iran does, do it back to them 10 times over.

Does that swing both ways? Or is the US administration a law unto themselves? Iran has every right to be pissed off with America.

Read on, and try to put yourself in their shoes.

March 5 marks the anniversary of the 1967 death of former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, named man of the year in 1951 by Time magazine and now a forgotten name in American politics. In 1951 Iranians rallied behind their democratically elected prime minister in his struggle to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a British monopoly on Iranian oil. In addition, Mossadegh would make no promises to ally Iran with the United States in a time of Cold War polarization. In 1951 the British government imposed a worldwide embargo of Iranian oil and banned the export of goods to Iran, while taking its case to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The court found that Iran was doing nothing illegal, yet the US government continued to support the British embargo.

In 1953, under orders from President Eisenhower, the CIA organized a military coup that overthrew the government. Soon Mohammed Mossadegh was imprisoned and later placed under house-arrest for life. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, backed by the United States, took his place and held on to power for the next 25 years. The thriving democracy that existed in Iran was crushed.

On the economic front, the Shah denationalized Iran's oil industry, 60% of which went to American firms. Politically, he was so brutally effective with his US-trained SAVAK secret police that almost all of the democratic and secular opposition was eliminated. When the revolution finally ousted the autocratic Shah in 1979, the new regime was soon dominated by hard-lined Islamists led by Ayatollah Khomeini.

For years, the US denied its involvement in the 1953 coup, but in 2000 the Clinton administration finally issued a statement that recognized the US role in the failure of democracy in Iran. In a speech before the American-Iranian Council in March 2000, then Secretary of State Madeline Albright admitted, "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-21.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

0 Replies

WAS COVERT ATTEMPT TO NUKE IRAN FOILED BY LEAK?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know