Iran Crisis

I couldn't help but wonder last week when the State Of The Union Address contained assurances that US troops would be staying in Iraq for the forseeable future, and Blair sent another 3,000 troops to Afganistan...

Just a hop, skip & a jump to Iran then?

Probably politically naive of me, but I cannot help but think Iraq & Afganistan are becoming staging posts...

But on a lighter note...

NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state

To paraphrase Robin Williams:

"no more war, but once a month, some intense negotiation

NetsNJFan wrote: [QUOTE=gdub411]Is this a discussion about Iran or another anti-american thread?

what isn't an Anti-american thread around here.

[/QUO

Where are all the anti-American threads? Could you point a few out, please?

sleeper wrote: Blacksword wrote: Jim Garten wrote: I couldn't help but wonder last week when the State Of The Union Address contained assurances that US troops would be staying in Iraq for the forseeable future, and Blair sent another 3,000 troops to Afganistan... Just a hop, skip & a jump to Iran then? Probably politically naive of me, but I cannot help but think Iraq & Afganistan are becoming staging posts... But on a lighter note... NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state To paraphrase Robin Williams: "no more war, but once a month, some intense negotiation Well, Jim, I dont believe anything happens by accident in this game. Cast your mind back to those dark days following 9/11. Bush announced the 'Axis of Evil' world tour. He said they would all have to be dealt with in time. Iran is simply next on the list. There is no mystery about it.    Iran's one thing but North Korea's the scary one. Dont they already have neuclear weapons and an allie in China.

True, but they haven't got any oil so they don't count.

sleeper wrote: Syzygy wrote: sleeper wrote: Blacksword wrote: Jim Garten wrote: I couldn't help but wonder last week when the State Of The Union Address contained assurances that US troops would be staying in Iraq for the forseeable future, and Blair sent another 3,000 troops to Afganistan... Just a hop, skip & a jump to Iran then? Probably politically naive of me, but I cannot help but think Iraq & Afganistan are becoming staging posts... But on a lighter note... NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state To paraphrase Robin Williams: "no more war, but once a month, some intense negotiation Well, Jim, I dont believe anything happens by accident in this game. Cast your mind back to those dark days following 9/11. Bush announced the 'Axis of Evil' world tour. He said they would all have to be dealt with in time. Iran is simply next on the list. There is no mystery about it.    Iran's one thing but North Korea's the scary one. Dont they already have neuclear weapons and an allie in China. True, but they haven't got any oil so they don't count. No, but technically America has been at war with them for 50 years, they may decide to finnish it one day

We would need about 400,000 troops to handle Iran but with Afghaninsanity and I Rock in the mix we couldn't handle it. Iran has much more military might than insurgents and Al Queda combined. We've extended our military resouces almost to the breaking point as it is.

Looks like a draft maybe on the way folks.

NetsNJFan wrote: gdub411 wrote: Is this a discussion about Iran or another anti-american thread? what isn't an Anti-american thread around here.

Excuse me....... But the one country that has been pushing sanctions against Iran (more than any other)  happens to be the US.  Also, the US administration waged an illegal war in Iraq for reasons which have since proven to be false, killing many civilians in the process..... without even allowing the UN to conduct a final report over what weapons inspectors found in the country (which, by the way, was one of the reasons for 'invading' the country in the first place).

The really sad thing about your sensitivity is the fact that successive US administrations have quite a record for performing actions against countries that are (1) not an ally, and (2) has something of interest to the US administration.  U know, more ppl would be more sympathetic about these sensitivities if such administrations didnt abuse the power given to them, and if ppl used the democratic voting system that they have to vote such ppl out.  It is assumed that americans 'want' these lunatics to run what is the most powerful country on earth.

Trust me when i say that i am not anti-american.  I find that americans are very amicable ppl who deserve more respect than their countries reputation allows them.  However, the actions of US administrations (especially the current one) and their continued paranoid rantings against a variety of nations, including Iran, Venezuela, and others does not give me much sympathy to those who say that comments against american actions (political) should be 'polite'.  Too much damage has been done already, and the promise of more damage being perpertrated is too close for comfort.

Edited by edible_buddha

It's gone quiet on the Iranian front once more, while the UNSC discuss what action to take. Until there is new news, here is a worrying article. Not the sort of thing you're going to read in the New York Times or the Daily Mail..

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&a mp;code=WOK20060219&articleId=2002

Quote:

You can bet that Iran would retaliate. Tehran promised a “crushing response” to any US or Israeli attack, and while the country – ironically - doesn’t possess nuclear weapons to scare off attackers, it does have other options. Iran boasts ground forces estimated at 800,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit Israel and possibly even Europe. In addition, much of the world’s oil supply is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of ocean which Iran borders to the north. In 1997, Iran’s deputy foreign minister warned that the country might close off that shipping route if ever threatened, and it wouldn’t be difficult. Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels and block the Strait, thereby threatening the global oil supply and shooting energy prices into the stratosphere.

An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, especially provoking the Shiite Muslim populations. Considering that Shiites largely run the governments of Iran and Iraq and are a potent force in Saudi Arabia, that doesn’t bode well for calm in the region. It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of Iran’s, potentially sparking increased global terrorism. A Shiite rebellion in Iraq would further endanger US troops and push the country deeper into civil war.

Attacking Iran could also tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to offend during his period in office. Just last month, Russia snubbed Washington by announcing it would go ahead and honor a $700 million contract to arm Iran with surface-to-air missiles, slated to guard Iran’s nuclear facilities. And after being burned when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority invalidated Hussein-era oil deals, China has snapped up strategic energy contracts across the world, including in Latin America, Canada and Iran. It can be assumed that China will not sit idly by and watch Tehran fall to the Americans.

 

 

Hi Mark

Russia and Iran have been pretty cosy for many years. I guess it's all about scratching each others back. I think Russia may have known for years that the US - or the west in general - would seek to control the oil in the ME eventually. I also believe that Putin's government is suffering a huge hangover from the Soviet days. He is after all an ex KGB officer, and his recent backslapping of the re-elected leader of Belarus, just reinforces this idea. The US says they will not recognise the new Belarus leader, and the EU threatens sanctions on them. Putin is very happy with the result. Despite the wests claims, Russia is still regarded as an enemy.

Russia has been selling arms to Iran for years, and the true extent of Irans capability is unknown.

The latest: While our leaders and their bootlicking mainstream media, conspire to keep us all in the dark over the gravity of the ME situation, the Bush administration is planning a nuclear attack on Iran. The Telegraph newpaper in the UK reveals today that 'bunker busting' tactical nuclear weapons are likely to be used to destroy Iran subteranean nuclear facilities, in favour of conventional strikes or any kind of land invasion; in the event of 'inevitable' non compliance on the part of Iran.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04 /09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixnewstop.html

If the 'window dressing' UN diplomatic route fails - which it will - the US and/or Israel will act with or without backing of the EU or NATO, to counter Irans non compliance IMO.

NetsNJFan wrote: ^ And I would applaud such a measure.  Iran really is scary, and are no doubt sincere in their calls to wipe Israel off the map.

I would not. The use of these weapons will open a 'pandoras box' and escalte the conflict in the ME. Of this I feel certain, although sincerly hope I'm wrong.

The real problem here is that since the cold war ended, we should have been seriously down sizing our nuclear capabilities, and while we may have reduced numbers of strategic weapons, this new generation of relativly low yield nukes is in overdrive. We are in danger of blurring boundaries between conventional and nuclear weapons. The use of low yield nukes could become 'acceptable' and I for one do not believe their advocates when they say that subteranean nuclear blasts will not harm civillian populations.

Iran does not want to 'wipe Israel off the map' It's new leader does. Thats different. There is huge opposition to his leadership in Iran, and that opposition is well placed to topple him, and want to. Israels fear is that it wont happen quick enough. Iran could be over five years from having a bomb, and Israel have been prodding the US into action over this for some time. I understand their paranoia and impatience, but I think it's ill judged and more dangerous than any threat currently coming from Iran.

 

NetsNJFan wrote: Blacksword wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: ^ And I would applaud such a measure.  Iran really is scary, and are no doubt sincere in their calls to wipe Israel off the map. I would not. The use of these weapons will open a 'pandoras box' and escalte the conflict in the ME. Of this I feel certain, although sincerly hope I'm wrong. The real problem here is that since the cold war ended, we should have been seriously down sizing our nuclear capabilities, and while we may have reduced numbers of strategic weapons, this new generation of relativly low yield nukes is in overdrive. We are in danger of blurring boundaries between conventional and nuclear weapons. The use of low yield nukes could become 'acceptable' and I for one do not believe their advocates when they say that subteranean nuclear blasts will not harm civillian populations. Iran does not want to 'wipe Israel off the map' It's new leader does. Thats different. There is huge opposition to his leadership in Iran, and that opposition is well placed to topple him, and want to. Israels fear is that it wont happen quick enough. Iran could be over five years from having a bomb, and Israel have been prodding the US into action over this for some time. I understand their paranoia and impatience, but I think it's ill judged and more dangerous than any threat currently coming from Iran. It's important to remember that Iran's leader was democratically elected, and its not exactly like he's hiring actors for his "wipe israel of the map" rallies all over Iran.  I don't complete blame the Iranian population for these tendencies, like much of the authoritarian Arab world, they have been told to blame the US and Israel for every one of their problems.  It's only natural that after decades of being taught this they'd accept that Israel (and the Jews) are their enemies.  This is the same in Egypt, Syria, The Saudi Sphere, Iraq.  The only sizable muslim countries who are actually truely friendly with Israel are Jordan and Turkey, and they also happen to be the only ones who have enlightened rulers who don't scapegoat the west. I agree completely with your statements on nuclear disarmament, but at the same time I think a preemptive striek similar to what the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981 is necessary.

The Israelis didn't use nuclear weapons at Osirak. Ok, the Iranian facilities are underground so conventional weaponary may not penetrate them, but the US needs to take a step back from this situation and ask itself which scenario is more likely to escalte across and beyond.

1) Iran builds a bomb. Isreal has the bomb. A cold war transpires between the two, as does an arms race. So what? According to advocates of nuclear weapons during the cold war, both is the US and USSR, it was the existence of such weapons on both sides that preserved the peace for so long. Whats different about the Israel/Iran situation. The fact that Israel is the only country in the ME to possess nuclear weapons is actually creating a bigger problem than there needs to be.

2) Israel/US use nuclear weapons to disable Irans nuclear project. Israel gets attacked by Iran, possibly other Arab states too. The Russians and Chinese are upset, the movement of oil is disrupted in the gulf as Iranians block water ways. The world goes into a severe energy crisis. This is looking on the bright side. Russia may choose to take Israel to task on its pre-emptive agression towards it's economic ally. This upsets the US...the rest will be history...WWIII

Despite their obvious insanity, Iran does not want to die in a nuclear fire, just as the Russians didn't. A balance of power in the region may actually bring about peace. I may be wrong, but the MAD principle did seem to work for the West and the USSR, wouldn't you say?