0
   

Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 04:33 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:

I cant praise Robert Fisk's book the Great War for Civilisation - the conquest of the middle east highly enough.

Anyone interested should read the chapter "The carpet weavers", to understand the Iranians.

They are patient, intelligent, industrious and moreover God is on their side. If they want nuclear weapons, nothing will stop them in the long run. Not war nor sanctions or even regime change. The trick is to make them feel they dont need nuclear weapons. Sadly this is quite beyond the capacity of the current American administration.


Is your unstated assmption that Iran can be persuaded that such weapons are not necessary for them? They lived through the Cold War (and a Russian occupation of northern Iran) without them. Why do they "need" them now?

Do you believe it is - in principle - within the powers of any American President to persuade the current Iranian leadership that they don't need such weapons? Do you believe that the leaders of the major European states can or shouuld play a constructive role in such an effort?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 07:08 am
I just heard an interview with John Bolton (now with AEI, formerly UN ambassdor), and the former British ambassador to UN, who's name i forgot....anyway it boiled down to the European position

negotiate with Iran
dont exclude military action
but reconcile to the fact that we might have to live with an Iranian bomb


and the US position

we dont trust Iran
they are killing coalition soldiers in Iraq
they are hell bent on developing a nuclear weapon capability
they must be stopped.


Bolton also made the interesting point that the so called second resolution over the Iraq war was unnecessary and detrimental to the UN. Similar protracted negotiations with Iran also brings the UN into disrepute.

Of course the US is playing exactly the same game with Iran as they did with Iraq...i.e forcing them to prove a negative.

Ragi Ohmar BBC correspondent recently back from Tehran said a strike against Iran was likely, but the real reasons for it had much wider strategic and geopolitical concerns than just uranium enrichment.

To answer your question below George, I cant think of anyone else better placed to convince Iran that they do not need nuclear weapons than the President of the United States. But as US and Iran are not talking, and the US rejected Ahmedinejad's letter out of hand last year, its not looking hopeful.

If you want to get a perspective, look up this letter, its well worth reading.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 07:10 am
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-060510-irna01.htm
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 12:51 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-060510-irna01.htm closing section excerpted..... The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"
Mr. President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the
Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.


It was indeed an interesting piece. Steve. I believe you should consider the following fundamental and rather obvious questions as you consider what he wrote. For whom was it written?? What, who was the intended audience? Finally, with this audience in mind, what was the intended effect? Clearly it was not what it purports to be - a thoughtful communication to the leader of another country, meant to persuade and seek greater mutual understanding.

The antagonism to Western Liberal values explicit in his views and expressions of them, could not be more clear. Despite all the high-sounding scriptural references, the authoritarian character of his earnest views was equally clear.

His references to the history of the Middle East and the establishment of Israel should be a stark reminder to Europeans of their role in the creation of the clash of civilizations that the letter so amply outlines.

In all of this, however, it is the rejection by the Islamist world of the key progressive elements of Western Liberal civilization that stands in the way of any solution or mutually beneficial evolution. In the case of Israel the problem is augmented by the unhappy choice of Zionist leaders Israel to create an Eastern, tribal & religious system of government there, effectively dooming themselves (and their supporters) to continued conflict and further aggravation of the clash of civilizations.

Finally, one must note the deceitful omissions from the Iranian's letter -- no reference to the Soviet occupation of northern Iran; Western help to get them out; the internal cultural conflict within Iran; the growing Sunni - Shia struggle within Islam; Iranian support and direction of revolutionary and terrorist movements across the region; and finally, Iranian attacks on Persian Gulf shipping in the 1980s.

It is easy to fault the evident shortcomings of U.S. policy in these matters. George Bush's rhetorical failings are equally easy to see and fault. However the criticism of them usually comes with no reference whatever to the resolution of the very real challenge represented by the clash of civilizations that now grips the world, and, more importantly, no suggestion as to how to deal with it and preserve our Western values in the process.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 01:22 pm
Soviet occupation in northern Iran - are you referring here to the Iran crisis 1946 after the occupation of northern Iran by the UK and Russia in 1942?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 02:00 pm
Newsweek: The Iranian Special Operations Quds Force as close to US allies as American enemies RAW STORY
Published: Sunday February 18, 2007

The Bush administration has accused the Iranian Special Operations unit known as the Quds Force of harming US soldiers in Iraq, though they admit that they don't know why or at whose direction the Iranian force is operating within the country. But the real issue, reports Newsweek, is that the Quds Force appears to be working in collusion with US allies in Iraq as much as with US enemies.

"The unit appears to be as close to America's Shiite and Kurdish allies as to splinter groups accused of killing perhaps 170 of the more than 3,000 American soldiers who've died in Iraq," says Newsweek.

According to Newsweek, there is a relationship between the Quds Force and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and between the force and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Both of those leaders have recently spent time at the White House, but their involvement with the Quds Force goes back decades. "Quds operatives captured recently were working directly under the protection, respectively, of Talabani and Hakim," reports the article.

US commanders are worried about the growing threat of Iranian arms in Iraq, says Newsweek. Though the Quds Force has not been specifically linked to any attacks in Iraq, the recent spate of US helicopters being shot down is worrisome, as is the increasingly more common appearance of "explosively formed penetrators" which Newsweek reports that the Quds Force "allegedly helped design and supply to some Shiite factions in Iraq." However, skeptics worry that the Bush administration is just trying to "provoke a fight with Iran," says the article.

YOU CAN READ THE FULL NEWSWEEK ARTICLE AT THIS LINK
http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/The_Iranian_Special_Operations_Quds_Force_0218.html
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 04:12 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
Of course the US is playing exactly the same game with Iran as they did with Iraq...i.e forcing them to prove a negative.
This is an easy way to demonize the US, but it simply isn't true. When left unhindered; the IAEA does a pretty good job of verifying nuclear negatives. Iran chooses not to cooperate with the International Community, not just the US. Your desire to single out the US for blame is as obvious as it is misguided.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 05:07 pm
OCCUM, the US ignored ElBaradei on Saddam's nukes fearmongering over mushroom clouds when ElBaradei said Saddam had no nukes. Now The IAEA, led by Mohamed ElBaradei, has said it has found no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. So I think it's strange when Bushies pretend they really care what the IAEA says anyway. Ambassadors from 118 countries just inspected and support Iran's nuclear program. So they are cooperating with the international community. Their program is legal under the non-proliferation treaty. America on the other hand is violating the same treaty.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 05:48 pm
That you think Saddam has any bearing on anything I said, amply demonstrates your incoherence. That you don't realize the IAEA referred Iran the to the UN Security Counsel for non compliance amply demonstrates your ignorance. Iran is not Iraq. Wh... why do I waste my time responding to people who are too willfully ignorant to see the difference? Good Day.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 06:54 pm
OCCUM, I dont know why you waste your time. But the nation has seen through the lies that led to war in Iraq and Bushie is having a harder time lying us into war in Iran. You got your work cut out for yourself.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 06:25 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
Of course the US is playing exactly the same game with Iran as they did with Iraq...i.e forcing them to prove a negative.
This is an easy way to demonize the US, but it simply isn't true. When left unhindered; the IAEA does a pretty good job of verifying nuclear negatives...
Laughing


Oh yes UN (IAEA) weapons inspectors. I remember them. Wasnt there some bloke called Hans Blix who was just about to draw a blank in his search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when the inspectors had to be withdrawn for their own safey as the US started bombing to show they did have them? What was the outcome of that one? I forgot.

You cant prove a negative. Its for those making the assertion that Iran has or is acquiring nuclear weapons to come up with some evidence. The build up to the strike on Iran with its reliance on politically manipulated intelligence is uncannily like that on Iraq.

I think Ahmadinejad is bonkers but he's not going to launch a suicidal nuclear war against anyone. If the US attacks, you may put back the day of a nuclear armed Iran, but you will make them even more determined to acquire those weapons (if[/b] that is their intention) in future.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 07:29 am
Steve, there's a not so subtle difference between wandering around near aimlessly and searching for Bio, Chemical and Nuclear weapons... and insisting on full access to ongoing Uranium Enrichment. Do you suppose there was a reason Iran was referred to the Security council, or that the same guy who believed Iraq innocent made the recommendation? At least try to make your argument in light of the actual facts.

I don't think Ahmadinejad is bonkers, necessarily, but neither do I think he's in charge. Further, I think delaying their nuclear progress should be sufficient, because I believe the days of the Mullah's stronghold are numbered. Educated Iranians have been fighting for freedom for far too long, and I believe their day is coming. Surely we agree they deserve it. I will not be completely shocked if our buildup pressure precipitates an internal coup by the Iranian Resistance.

You obviously don't agree; but I'd rather not see a nutty mullah in his death throws with his fingers anywhere near a "destroy Tel Aviv" button.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 08:13 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Steve...At least try to make your argument in light of the actual facts.
Well the fact is that Iran is an NPT signatory, and no-one is accusing them of breaching its terms. They voluntarily entered into agreements (outside of the npt) allowing for further inspections which they now have withdrawn from. Iran has no nuclear weapons. Pakistan India and Israel do have nuclear weapons. None of those latter countries are NPT signatories.

I think it quite likely the US will try to engineer some pretext for a strike against Iran's nuclear industry, in the hope that will be a trigger for pro Western regime change. But ask yourself, is that likely? America attacks the cutting edge of Iranian industry and technology and expects that young proud and resourceful nation to be grateful? I was tricked the first time over Iraq. I'm not going to be tricked again over Iran.

I can see the facts quite clearly thank you.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 08:52 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Steve, there's a not so subtle difference between wandering around near aimlessly and searching for Bio, Chemical and Nuclear weapons... and insisting on full access to ongoing Uranium Enrichment.


Your argument doesn't chime with what the Bush administration proclaimed in the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bill. Pre-invasion, the Bush admin declared that they exactly knew the location of the biological, chemical and nuclear facilities, and that the Iraqis where merely denying access to those sites.

It was only when the inspectors reported that they had virtually unhindered access to all the Iraqi sites and that they couldn't find evidence for ongoing weapons programmes that the story changed to "The Iraqis Are Moving Around All Their Equipment All The Time" (basically the core argument of Powell's "report" to the UN Security Council).

Of course, post-invasion the story changed once more to "The Iraqis Had Weapons Of Mass Destruction, But Moved Them All To Syria". In fact, I saw conservative posters on A2K posting opinion pieces even claiming the the Iraqi WMD were all in China now.


I really urge you, Bill, to go back to what your government presented to you before the invasion, and compare it to the situation in Iran right now. Again, you're being told with nigh-to complete certainty what is going on in Iran now.

You are making it appear (or maybe even remembering it) as if your government had merely been telling you that "there was a chance" of Iraqis working on WMD programmes or being in possession of facilities or actual weapons. It was not.


The Bush administration had knowledge of 65 chemical weapons storage facilities:

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/powell-slides/images/12-350h.jpg

Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells.


Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/powell-slides/images/13-350h.jpg

Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions. The arrow at the top that says security points to a facility that is the signature item for this kind of bunker. Inside that facility are special guards and special equipment to monitor any leakage that might come out of the bunker.



The Bush administration had knowledge of ballistic missile sites, and knowledge about these missiles and missile components being moved:

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/powell-slides/images/14-350h.jpg

At this ballistic missile site, on November 10, we saw a cargo truck preparing to move ballistic missile components.


Certainly, a cargo truck preparing to move ballistic missile components looks completely different from an ordinary cargo truck. And, unlike the second one, the first one justifies the invasion of a country.

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/powell-slides/images/16-350h.jpg

At this ballistic missile facility, again, two days before inspections began, five large cargo trucks appeared along with the truck-mounted crane to move missiles. We saw this kind of house cleaning at close to 30 sites.



And, of course, the administration had absolute reliable information about the infamous mobile chemical and biological weapons laboratories:

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/powell-slides/images/21-350h.jpg

Here you see both truck and rail car-mounted mobile factories. The description our sources gave us of the technical features required by such facilities are highly detailed and extremely accurate. As these drawings based on their description show, we know what the fermenters look like, we know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like. We know how they fit together.



Even when the invading US army finally found these trucks and they turned out to be mobile hydrogen generators, Bush declared, in an interview on Polish TV:

Quote:
THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 10:21 am
Guardian wrote:
An Iranian website fiercely critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been shut down in an apparent fresh crackdown on anti-government dissent on the internet.

Baztab, a fundamentalist site that has previously accused Mr Ahmadinejad of betraying the Islamic revolution by attending a female dance show...


Laughing You know I owe those boys and girls in the CIA an apology. They do have a sense of humour.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 11:00 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2016222,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

Gary Younge in the Guardian wrote:
And so we watch the administration's plans for a military attack against Iran unfold even as its official narrative for the run-up to the war in Iraq unravels and the wisdom of that war stands condemned by death and destruction. As though on split screens, we pass seamlessly from reports of how they lied to get us into the last war, to scenes of carnage as a result of the war, to shots of them lying us into the next one.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 11:02 am
Russian construction of nuclear power plant in Iran delayed again dpa German Press Agency
Published: Monday February 19, 2007

Moscow- The completion of the first Iranian nuclear power
plant by Russian companies this year would be delayed again, reports
from Moscow said Monday.
The reactor in the city of Bushehr on the Gulf would not start
operations before 2008 because Iran was not paying bills and spares
from third countries were missing, Interfax news agency quoted the
Atomstroiexport company as saying.

The United States fears that civil Russian nuclear technology
could also be used for potential Iranian nuclear weapons' programmes.

The Russian government has said repeatedly that Bushehr did not
pose a danger because it was not enriching uranium that could be used
for making weapons.

The launch date of power plant has been delayed several times in
the past years. According to Moscow, atomic fuel rods are due to be
sent to Bushehr in March.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 11:04 am
Quote:
"It is absolutely parallel," Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist, told Vanity Fair magazine. "They're using the same dance steps - demonise the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux."
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 01:00 pm
ElBaradei: West will probably ratchet up sanctions against Iran

By News Agencies

Western powers will probably ratchet up sanctions against Iran but that will not be enough to resolve a standoff over its nuclear ambitions, International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said on Monday.

"The Iran issue is not going to be resolved through sanctions alone. You need to reach out to the country and bring them to engagement. You need to get that process going," ElBaradei told a conference in London on Monday.

ElBaradei said there is still time to negotiate with Iran about its nuclear program, saying it would take years for Tehran to produce weapons.

He also said international cooperation and more aid for poor countries are needed to build a secure world free of nuclear weapons.

"Our system is based on a combination of inequality and insecurity," ElBaradei said in a speech at the London School of Economics.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/827788.html
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 10:02 pm
Nice job OE, really. I wasn't arguing that Iraq wasn't BS. My personal belief is they lied believing they were telling the truth and were as surprised as anyone when the came up empty. You may remember a supposed turncoat helped them to that conclusion. Matters, not, they did come up empty. I did question their certainty about certain things during the dog and pony show, but I'll be honest; I NEVER thought they would come up empty.

But Iran isn't quite the same kettle of fish. They ARE processing uranium. They have the technology, the material, the means and I'm guessing the desire for the same reason everyone else wants WMD; security. If it's energy they want; why not accept the fuel from Russia? If it's energy they want; why risk a war in which they'd be hopelessly overmatched instead of taking the better, cheaper deal? How do you reconcile that decision with a desire for peaceful nuclear power?

I assure you; the Iranian Resistance is neither happy with their nuclear ambitions nor Ahmadinejad's rhetoric. I don't have to hear that from Bush, as it's clearly demonstrated on their own website... courtesy of French hospitality, go figure (don't get me wrong, good on them for that, but it's strange since their so buddy buddy with the Mullahs)... and had even listed the Resistance as a terrorist group.

Anyway. Something about turning down Russia's offer of fuel stinks. Can anyone explain it?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/09/2025 at 03:58:19