Steve 41oo wrote:au1929 wrote:..Bush is chomping at the bit... However, even he is not stupid enough to get enbroiled in a fight we do not have a chance to win.
Whatever makes you think that?
Think what? That he is stupid or we can't win?
That he is stupid? Look at his record for the last six years. That we can't win IRAQ,IRAQ,IRAQ.
au1929 wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:au1929 wrote:..Bush is chomping at the bit... However, even he is not stupid enough to get enbroiled in a fight we do not have a chance to win.
Whatever makes you think that?
Think what? That he is stupid or we can't win?
That he is stupid? Look at his record for the last six years. That we can't win IRAQ,IRAQ,IRAQ.
Your claim that wew CANT WIN proves what many on the right have been saying.You have no faith in or confidence in the US military.
We can win,if the soldiers are allowed to fight the war,instead of being handcuffed by the politicians in Washington.
I personally find it offensive that you doubt the ability of our armed forces.
You claim to "support the troops",but by saying we CANT win,you prove that you dont.
mysteryman wrote:
We can win,if the soldiers are allowed to fight the war,instead of being handcuffed by the politicians in Washington.
You can win this beautiful, endless war. According to your Vice-President Dick Cheney: "It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years." (January 14th, Vice President Dick Cheney on
FOX News Sunday)
mysteryman wrote:au1929 wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:au1929 wrote:..Bush is chomping at the bit... However, even he is not stupid enough to get enbroiled in a fight we do not have a chance to win.
Whatever makes you think that?
Think what? That he is stupid or we can't win?
That he is stupid? Look at his record for the last six years. That we can't win IRAQ,IRAQ,IRAQ.
Your claim that wew CANT WIN proves what many on the right have been saying.You have no faith in or confidence in the US military.
We can win,if the soldiers are allowed to fight the war,instead of being handcuffed by the politicians in Washington.
I personally find it offensive that you doubt the ability of our armed forces.
You claim to "support the troops",but by saying we CANT win,you prove that you dont.
MM
I Said nothing about the ability of our armed forces. We can't win because we do not have the forces and equipment to support a war with Iran. In addition both our experience In both Viet Nam and Iraq should be evidence enough that we can't fight and win a war without popular support both at home and abroad. In particular a guerrilla type action.
A fairly superficial piece, The most remarkable elements in it are the rather sweeping conclusions, unsupported as they atre by any significant facts or analysis.
We have had aircraft carriers and cruise missile-equipped ships and submarines continuously in the Persian Gulf and Northern Arabian Sea for about 20 years, without interruption. This is hardly news. The Patriot missiles are there to counter some modern weaponry the Soviets recently sold the Iranians.
I'm not saying there is no possibility that we will strike Iran: only that the "facts" assembled by this reporter are not demonstrative of anything in particular. It is almost certain that we are deliberately maintaining the capability to do so in order to influence Iean's behavior. However, this is not news - our government has already said as much.
So much for the supposed astute analysis of the (ahem) 'Guardian'.
georgeob1 wrote:
A fairly superficial piece, The most remarkable elements in it are the rather sweeping conclusions, unsupported as they atre by any significant facts or analysis.
We have had aircraft carriers and cruise missile-equipped ships and submarines continuously in the Persian Gulf and Northern Arabian Sea for about 20 years, without interruption. This is hardly news. The Patriot missiles are there to counter some modern weaponry the Soviets recently sold the Iranians.
I'm not saying there is no possibility that we will strike Iran: only that the "facts" assembled by this reporter are not demonstrative of anything in particular. It is almost certain that we are deliberately maintaining the capability to do so in order to influence Iean's behavior. However, this is not news - our government has already said as much.
So much for the supposed astute analysis of the (ahem) 'Guardian'.
Your calm and professional analysis of this situation, George, contrasts sharply with the utterances of your policymakers. The hawks advising GWB, and persuasive voices from within Israel, want military strikes on sites within Iran.
Judging from Sec Rice's recent appearance before congressional committee, the legislatures hold the opposite view, and individuals there have at last found their voices.
My own view is, GWB is sufficiently detatched from reality to ignore temperate voices from within his own country, from the military and from the wider international community, and attack Iran. I hope I am wrong.
It was interesting to read today that PM Ahmadinejad of Iran is losing support in his own country, because of the negative and damaging effects his policies (and his extreme and warlike utterances) are having on their economy. He seems to be on the way out.
You can find that too in the ahem Guardian.
I think that if we were going to do a surprise attack on Iran we wouldn't be talking about it. The fact that we are, is suggestive that all this is posturing - purposeful to be sure, but posturing nonetheless. Kicking up dust for effect. It may well add to Ahmadinejad's domestic political troubles. (The assessment of Iran among the nefarious "neocons" is that its very large young generation is increasingly restive under the thumb of a backward-looking theocracy. This too is old news, even for people who don't read the - ahem - Guardian)
The facts I posted are hardly news to anyone with even a slight knowledge of the recent history of the region and our previous actions there. The Guardian writer was either knowingly making up some grist for the paper's editorial mill, or simply amateurish in his "analysis" and discovery of facts. Either way I am not impressed.
Though our strategy and actions have often been far from perfect, it should be remembered that from Pakistan to Jordan we are still working to clean up the bungled mess of British colonialism, and the ill-conceived, greedy action of Britain and France to destroy the Ottomman Empire in 1914, despite the fact that it presented no conceivable threat to them and was desperately trying to stay out of the war.
I believe you too blithely write off the strategy behind the policies of this administration. They have handled Kim Jong Il with remarkable skill and dexterity, telling China, Japan and South Korea that this is primarily their problem, and quietly ignoring the juvenile tantrums of this very odd, unhappy country and its even odder leader. This already has been a good deal more effective than the actions of the previous administration, which merely sent Margaret Albright, bribes in hand, over for some public ass-kissing - and got only comtemptuous betrayals for their efforts.
georgeob1 wrote:Though our strategy and actions have often been far from perfect, it should be remembered that from Pakistan to Jordan we are still working to clean up the bungled mess of British colonialism, and the ill-conceived, greedy action of Britain and France to destroy the Ottomman Empire in 1914, despite the fact that it presented no conceivable threat to them and was desperately trying to stay out of the war.
And when you finished that, you'll start to work on what the Portoguese and Spaniards (or Pope Alexander VI) messed up in the Americas?
Walter Hinteler wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Though our strategy and actions have often been far from perfect, it should be remembered that from Pakistan to Jordan we are still working to clean up the bungled mess of British colonialism, and the ill-conceived, greedy action of Britain and France to destroy the Ottomman Empire in 1914, despite the fact that it presented no conceivable threat to them and was desperately trying to stay out of the war.
And when you finished that, you'll start to work on what the Portoguese and Spaniards (or Pope Alexander VI) messed up in the Americas?
Recently (and inspired by ebrown's thread) I have imagined an Iranian georgeob1, arguing that, though Iran's strategy and actions have often been far from perfect, it should be remembered that Iran is still working to clean up the bungled mess of British colonialism from Alaska to the Mexican border, and the ill-conceived, greedy action of Britain and France to destroy the native culture, despite the fact that it presented no conceivable threat to them and that the native Americans desperately tried to stay out of the war....
Cute response old europe. Misleading, but cute. There are more than two centuries separating the elements of your analogy, and I think that even you know the truth of the point I made.
Britain didn't bug out of India Pakistan until well after WWII - and even then reluctantly. The vestiges of the former British protectorates were still present in Oman and Bahrain in the late 1980s when I spent some time there. Little more than a half century ago Moslems from Morocco across North Africa to Egypt, Syria, Palestine, to Mesopotamia, the Gulf States, Yemen and Pakistan all labored under French & British misrule. Most of the revolutionary and fundamentalist Moslem organizations, from the secular Baath party to the Moslem Brotherhood that so dominate the scene today have their roots in the resistance to European colonialism.
For all their many faults the Ottomans were trying to bring elements of modernity to their possessions in the Middle east and Gulf regions. The Anglo French inspired Arab revolution and their subsequent invasion set all that back several generations and imposed the absurd borders that still are the source of so much discord. The conflicting and duplicitous promises made to Zionists and Hashemites set the stage for the struggles that erupted after WWII.
Walter - I don't think we have really done much to push South America around. (Central America is another story.) I believe the last time we sent any threatening naval force was before WWI and that was to chase the British & Germans out of either Colombia or Venezuela where they (the Europeans) were using naval power to coerce repayment of some debts. Even in Central America it was France, not the United States, that attempted to force an alien government on Mexico.
Part of what makes these matters so difficult to sort out is that the central characters so often lie through their phucking teeth.
Quote:U.S. officials: Cheney was kept in the loop on Israel-Syria talks
By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent
Senior American government officials received regular reports of the secret meetings that took place in Europe between a former Israeli official and a Syrian representative, Haaretz has learned.
Senior officials in Washington told Haaretz that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was kept in the picture about these indirect talks between Syria and Israel.
Ibrahim (Ayeb) Suleiman, the Syrian representative, also said this at his meetings with former Foreign Ministry director general Alon Liel, adding that Cheney had made no move to stop him from participating in the talks. Suleiman is a Washington resident.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/814534.html
We'll just note that Olmert, in the tradition of Sharon and Netanyahu, is the subject of another corruption investigation.
from the American Conservative...
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/article.html
georgeob1 wrote: Even in Central America it was France, not the United States, that attempted to force an alien government on Mexico.
Besides that we in Europe still think, America is just one (maybe two) continent and not three ...
There's a nice summarising list
here.
Iran invites IAEA envoys to visit nuclear sites
By Mark Heinrich
VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran has invited envoys from developing nations accredited to the U.N. nuclear watchdog to visit its nuclear sites in a show of openness about its atomic fuel programme, diplomats said.
Washington said Iran could regain trust only by cooperating fully with U.N. investigations into the nature of the programme.
The Islamic Republic has been slapped with limited U.N. sanctions over suspicions that its experimental efforts to enrich uranium are secretly geared to building atom bombs, rather than to generating electricity as it maintains.
Iran has vowed to expand into industrial-scale fuel production, but has also pledged continued compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency inspections while trying to rally diplomatic support in its stand-off with Western powers.
Tehran has invited envoys from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of developing nations attached to the IAEA, and heads of the larger Group of 77 states and of the Arab League office in Vienna, to visit on February 2-6, an Iranian diplomat said.
"They have been invited to visit our nuclear installations from the 2nd through the 6th," the diplomat, who asked for anonymity, said on Tuesday. He did not elaborate.
A NAM envoy to the IAEA said the invitation had been accepted: "It'll be a publicity exercise for Iran -- to display transparency, saying, 'We invited the ambassadors, we're showing them the facilities'," the envoy told Reuters.
Gregory Schulte, U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, noted that the U.N. Security Council Resolution sanctions resolution passed on December 23 requires Iran to suspend work at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and the Arak heavy-water reactor project.
IAEA INVESTIGATIONS IN IRAN
"Instead of inviting IAEA ambassadors, Iran should give ... IAEA inspectors ... access to all of those documents, nuclear facilities and individuals that Iran's leaders have refused to provide access to for the last three years," he told Reuters.
"Suspending these activities would build confidence. Showcasing them does not," Schulte said on Wednesday.
Among those in the visiting delegation will be the Egyptian, Cuban and Malaysian ambassadors to the IAEA -- all prominent voices in NAM, to which Iran belongs, diplomats said.
They said Iran's gesture reflected a desire to shore up support within the 115-nation NAM in a brewing battle within the IAEA over the fate of its technical aid projects in Iran.
The NAM form a significant bloc on the IAEA's policymaking 35-nation governing board, which may vote on whether to cancel IAEA aid projects in Iran depending on findings of a review by agency experts due for completion in February.
The reassessment was set in motion by the sanctions resolution, which bans transfers of sensitive nuclear materials to Iran as well as IAEA technical aid if it has any possible application in producing nuclear fuel.
Some Western powers on the IAEA board, believing Iran must be isolated to get it to stop enrichment work, interpret the resolution to mean a large number of the 65 aid items will probably have to be cut, Vienna-based diplomats say.
But NAM nations feel most of the projects, many of which are devoted officially to the use of radioisotopes for "humanitarian" ends such as medicine, could pass muster under the resolution.
Walter Hinteler wrote:georgeob1 wrote: Even in Central America it was France, not the United States, that attempted to force an alien government on Mexico.
Besides that we in Europe still think, America is just one (maybe two) continent and not three ...
There's a nice summarising list
here.
Walter, you are being petty and pedantic. South America properly refers to the territory south of Panama. Central Ameruica (which is generally regarded as part of North America) is a well-defined and well understood term that I used precisely to head off some expected nit picking from you. There was nothing ambiguous in my use of it. My statements were clear, accurate, and not at all misleading.
Thank you for the linked list of Americam historical military interventions. Could you please provide me with similar lists regarding Germany, France and Great Britain? (It pains me top think of 'you Europeans' laboring under all these mistaken illusions.)
georgeob1 wrote:Walter, you are being petty and pedantic.
"Erbsenzähler" (nitpicker you mean? No, not really :wink:
georgeob1 wrote: Could you please provide me with similar lists regarding Germany, France and Great Britain? (It pains me top think of 'you Europeans' laboring under all these mistaken illusions.)
Wiki hasn't got such for those countries - but I'll do my second best to find some other sources.
"Erbsenzahler" -- It sounds so much nicer in German ! :wink:
Two Minutes Closer to Doomsday
Scientists Change Symbolic Clock to Recognize New Dangers
By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 18, 2007; Page A12
The Doomsday Clock, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' ticking nudge to the world's conscience, moved two minutes closer to nuclear midnight yesterday, the closest to doomsday it has been since the Cold War.
North Korea's nuclear bomb test, Iran's nuclear plans, and atomic energy projects posed as an answer to climate change prompted the scientific journal to move the hands of the clock on its cover to 11:55. Midnight represents doomsday on the clock, for six decades a symbolic indicator of the threat posed by nuclear proliferation.
Nuclear science has changed the world, "but it hasn't managed to change the way that people think about the world, and that's why we're here," said Mark Strauss, editor of the journal, founded by University of Chicago scientists whose work on the first atomic bomb led them to anti-nuclear advocacy. Decisions to change the clock come from the bulletin's board of sponsors, a group of scientists and policymakers that includes 18 Nobel laureates.
The group unveiled the new clock and made a statement at a joint news conference in Washington and London yesterday. "Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices," the statement declared.
Nuclear weapons expansion, renewed emphasis on nuclear weapons in war and poor safeguards of nuclear materials "are symptomatic of a failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth."
This is the 18th time the clock's hands have moved since it was created in 1947. At the start of the nuclear arms race in 1953, the timepiece came within two minutes of midnight. In 1991, after the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the clock moved the farthest from doomsday it has ever been, to 11:43.
"Bush the father's policy decisions produced the biggest one-time move away from midnight the clock ever experienced and Bush the son's policy decisions have pushed the clock almost as close to midnight as it's ever been," said Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University and a former member of the Atomic Scientists board that sets the clock.
Yesterday's announcement was attended by scientists and policymakers including Stephen Hawking, an astrophysicist, author and University of Cambridge mathematics professor; Sir Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society; and Leon Lederman, director emeritus of the Fermi Laboratory.
Thomas Pickering, co-chairman of the International Crisis Group, sounded one of the news conference's few semi-bright notes by pointing to renewed talks with nuclear aspirants: "Diplomacy ought to be our first resort, especially when there is time."
Reuters: Officials say rumored Iran strike not true
John Byrne
Published: Thursday January 18, 2007
After a rumored Iranian missile strike on a US military ship, Pentagon officials dismissed the claim anonymously in a Reuters article Thursday morning.
"No such event took place," one of the officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The US has recently upped its presence in the Gulf region, sending at least two aircraft carriers in what Defense Secretary Robert Gates says is an effort to put pressure on Tehran. Talk of a military strike on Iran has increased in recent weeks
blueflame1 wrote:Reuters: Officials say rumored Iran strike not true
John Byrne
Published: Thursday January 18, 2007
After a rumored Iranian missile strike on a US military ship, Pentagon officials dismissed the claim anonymously in a Reuters article Thursday morning.
"No such event took place," one of the officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The US has recently upped its presence in the Gulf region, sending at least two aircraft carriers in what Defense Secretary Robert Gates says is an effort to put pressure on Tehran. Talk of a military strike on Iran has increased in recent weeks
I'm glad its not true,but if it were then even you blue must agree the US would have the right to retaliate.
