This week the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will meet to decide whether to refer Iran to the UN Security council, in light of its refusal to stop it's pursuit of a nuclear energy program. The US and Israel believe, as do their allies, that the Islamic republic is pursuing a WMD program. Irans recently elected hard line government has been quoted as saying it wishes to 'wipe Israel of the map'

The Russians have said they will not stand in the way of a UN decision on Iran, in other words they would not veto any resolution for sanctions, but are keen for diplomacy to win out. They have offered Iran a deal wherby the Uranium enrichment process can be conducted on Russian soil, thus not allowing Iran the materials needed for a bomb. Iran are interested in the deal, and have stated that UN sanctions will not bring about an end to their energy program which they believe they have a right - in international law - to pursue.

If the security council passes a resolution for sanctions which is ignored by Iran, will military action be the next step? Will Israel act unilaterally? What effect would an attack on Iran do for US relations with China who recieves 13% of its oil from Iran, and with Russia, an ally of Iran who has been supplying her with parts for nuclear power stations as well as missiles and defence systems to deter/counter any attack from the Jewish state??

Would any conflict escalate into something bigger than we have seen in Iraq? This guy seems to think so....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&a mp;code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714 - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

Perhaps the Russian compromise can avoid sanctions or conflict... Read about Chinas support below...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4649182.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4649182.stm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&a mp;code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714 - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

Scary.

Oh God.

Well if bird flu doesn't get us,

or the ice caps melting don't drown us,

or a meteroite doesn't crash into the Earth,

or terrorists don't wipe us out,

or George Galloway doesn't bore us all to death (arse)

this will get us.

Cheery old World isn't it.  Now where's my Lithium tablets gone...

I like to think I bring a little ray of sunshine to the forum..  Perhaps I should change my user name to Grim Reaper..

For what it's worth we have been here before with the nuclear thing. The guy who wrote the article in my link is a professor of economics at the University of ottawa. What actually qualifies him as a military strategist I've no idea. I see it as no more than opinion, albeit a well argued and fairly frightening one.

Perhaps this is the build up to the next in the series of 'Resource Wars' ; the clamouring of the 'fittest' nations to secure the worlds dwindling fuel reserves, masquerading as some ill concieved fight between good and evil. One thing is for sure, anyone who thinks the 'cold war' is really over, must have slept through the 90's.

IMO...

It's the same media attack that was used so successfully to bamboozle the public over Iraq.The screw will be turned and turned until the public demands action and another moslem state will become the enemy-at-large.

Given,therefore,that some kind of conflict with Iran is inevitable,can I predict the following?

1. Nuclear Inspectors will try unsuccessfully to gain admission to the Nuclear Plants and decide that this means that Iran is developing weapons of mass distruction.
2. Atrocities carried out around the world that were previously not connected to Iran suddenly will be.
3.Terrorists will blow something up in either Europe or America and "Al Jazeirah" will claim to have a tape stating that the atrocity was in retaliation for the threats to Iran.
4.Tony Blair/The PM will align himself with Bush/USA Pres to maintain "world security"
5. Intelligence will link Iran with Osama Bin Laden and indeed they might be harbouring him.
6. Reports will detail that Iraq "Now has Nuclear Capability"
7. Iran will be attacked because "they might be about to blow us all up".Some kind of near miss will be reported,where but for intelligence a nuclear assault could have been attempted.
8. Some commentators will be shouted down for suggesting that a) Its all about Iran's oil and b) that there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons.
9.Iran will be crushed,hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians will be killed,and a few thousand Allied troops (mainly Americans)
10. A relative of G.Bush will be linked to a firm overseeing oil production in Iran.
11. A commisiion will be set up that eventually discovers what everyone knew: there are no nuclear weapons in Iran and Osama Bin Laden is more than likely hiding in Pakistan/Kurdistan/Florida.
12. Someone on this forum will declare that he doesnt care how many Iranians are killed because so many American troops have lost their lives in the defence of their country.
13.MTS will be hounded off the forum ()

Seriously.

Tony R wrote: It's the same media attack that was used so successfully to bamboozle the public over Iraq.The screw will be turned and turned until the public demands action and another moslem state will become the enemy-at-large. Given,therefore,that some kind of conflict with Iran is inevitable,can I predict the following? 1. Nuclear Inspectors will try unsuccessfully to gain admission to the Nuclear Plants and decide that this means that Iran is developing weapons of mass distruction. 2. Atrocities carried out around the world that were previously not connected to Iran suddenly will be. 3.Terrorists will blow something up in either Europe or America and "Al Jazeirah" will claim to have a tape stating that the atrocity was in retaliation for the threats to Iran. 4.Tony Blair/The PM will align himself with Bush/USA Pres to maintain "world security" 5. Intelligence will link Iran with Osama Bin Laden and indeed they might be harbouring him. 6. Reports will detail that Iraq "Now has Nuclear Capability" 7. Iran will be attacked because "they might be about to blow us all up".Some kind of near miss will be reported,where but for intelligence a nuclear assault could have been attempted. 8. Some commentators will be shouted down for suggesting that a) Its all about Iran's oil and b) that there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons. 9.Iran will be crushed,hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians will be killed,and a few thousand Allied troops (mainly Americans) 10. A relative of G.Bush will be linked to a firm overseeing oil production in Iran. 11. A commisiion will be set up that eventually discovers what everyone knew: there are no nuclear weapons in Iran and Osama Bin Laden is more than likely hiding in Pakistan/Kurdistan/Florida. 12. Someone on this forum will declare that he doesnt care how many Iranians are killed because so many American troops have lost their lives in the defence of their country. 13.MTS will be hounded off the forum () Seriously.

It seems you have the same crystal ball as me Tony. Thats pretty much exactly what I think is going to happen. But I dont think this will be another Iraq. It could be a lot worse. It's a different 'enemy' this time.... 

If Iran is attacked, they will retalliate against Israel. They have the means to. It would be a bloodbath, making the Iraq conflict look like a chimps tea party.

What we need really are more women as head of state.

Not sure how much longer George has to go in his term, but sounds like he might be replaced by Hillary or Condalisa.

If only Islam was slightly more tolerant of women we could then envisage a Mrs. Iotolah of Iran. (I see a fatwah heading my way )

The girls could then meet up have a chat, swap makeup tips, and stop all this bloody lunancy.

Its clear women are the more stabilising influence. Look at the mahem us chaps get up to in this forum. If we had more women on the forum, and maybe Mrs.Tony R moderating, I am sure we would all be more relaxed.

I agree that Iran should stop its nuclear energy program as long as all the 'allies' do the same

If a conflict comes up, then things could be worse than Iraq...

NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state. Not sure how much longer George has to go in his term, but sounds like he might be replaced by Hillary or Condalisa. If only Islam was slightly more tolerant of women we could then envisage a Mrs. Iotolah of Iran. (I see a fatwah heading my way ) The girls could then meet up have a chat, swap makeup tips, and stop all this bloody lunancy. Its clear women are the more stabilising influence. Look at the mahem us chaps get up to in this forum. If we had more women on the forum, and maybe Mrs.Tony R moderating, I am sure we would all be more relaxed.

The 'man' factor is something to do with it, I'm sure, but I dont think there is any reason why someone like Condoleeza Rice wopuld be any more compassionate on the world stage than her deranged boss. People who seek power are usually - by default - the wrong people to take power. There's no solution to this problem though. After all, you want a leader who at leasts thinks he/she is up to the job..

The biggest concern for me is that religous fundamentalists in Washington, Tel Aviv and all across the Muslim world are playing 'Apocalypse' games. It may not ultimately matter if God exists or not, but if the MEN with their fingers on the triggers believe he does, and they believe they have been instructed to pull those triggers, then we are all screwed!

Blacksword wrote: NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state. Not sure how much longer George has to go in his term, but sounds like he might be replaced by Hillary or Condalisa. If only Islam was slightly more tolerant of women we could then envisage a Mrs. Iotolah of Iran. (I see a fatwah heading my way ) The girls could then meet up have a chat, swap makeup tips, and stop all this bloody lunancy. Its clear women are the more stabilising influence. Look at the mahem us chaps get up to in this forum. If we had more women on the forum, and maybe Mrs.Tony R moderating, I am sure we would all be more relaxed. The 'man' factor is something to do with it, I'm sure, but I dont think there is any reason why someone like Condoleeza Rice wopuld be any more compassionate on the world stage than her deranged boss. People who seek power are usually - by default - the wrong people to take power. There's no solution to this problem though. After all, you want a leader who at leasts thinks he/she is up to the job.. The biggest concern for me is that religous fundamentalists in Washington, Tel Aviv and all across the Muslim world are playing 'Apocalypse' games. It may not ultimately matter if God exists or not, but if the MEN with their fingers on the triggers believe he does, and they believe they have been instructed to pull those triggers, then we are all screwed!

Yep, I think you're right.

Douglas Adams summed up the leadership problem best in my opinion:

"One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them: It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job."

Blacksword wrote: One thing is for sure, anyone who thinks the 'cold war' is really over, must have slept through the 90's.

The cold war is over. Now we have a hot potato.

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

What, like Maggie Thatcher? That woman was so compassionate.

Bob Greece wrote: NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state. What, like Maggie Thatcher? That woman was so compassionate.

She was to General Pinochet!

Bob Greece wrote: NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state. What, like Maggie Thatcher? That woman was so compassionate.

Maggie is not a woman, but a product of dark alchemy.

Well, the task with Iran must be great...

• Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and has a huge population also 4 times that of Iraq. Iranian people is more educated and concerned and they are basically of the shi'a sect - no religious divisions like in Iraq. 
• As long as I know, except for minorities, well integrated, of azeris and turcomens the population is homogeneous with the same persian background - no great ethnic divisions like in Iraq. 
• Iran has also very good Armed Forces and the ayatollahs are not silly guys like Saddam; they have a good industrial park capable of manufacturing light-to-medium weapons and other important items - Iraq had a tiny industrial park (except for the oil sector). 
• The resistance, in case of an invasion (which I still doubt) will be tremendous! They have certainly the atomic bomb but presently no means (a missile) to pour Israel for instance but they can let several artifacts in the eventual route of American & Allied forces - not counting the philosophy of flattened land, meaning the destruction of refineries, pipeways and oil pits.

Honestly, I believe that only a mad, mad, mad man is able to take this enterprise... but since the name Bush is cited I fear he'll take it.

oliverstoned wrote: Another issue would be other terrorist attacks under due to the pretext that arabs iranians are being "attacked" by westerners. To darken the painting a little more...

Persians are not Arabs and Sunnites think of Shiites as traitors,

but I am not so sure Arab nations will let a US led invasion of Iran happen. This might be the straw too much for Muslims.

And Tony's list of chronoligical events is also relatively likely to happen , but will stop short of invasion - this is inconceivable. I think missiles will be sent to destroy suspect installations.

Atkingani wrote: Well, the task with Iran must be great... Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and has a huge population also 4 times that of Iraq. Iranian people is more educated and concerned and they are basically of the shi'a sect - no religious divisions like in Iraq.  As long as I know, except for minorities, well integrated, of azeris and turcomens the population is homogeneous with the same persian background - no great ethnic divisions like in Iraq.  Iran has also very good Armed Forces and the ayatollahs are not silly guys like Saddam; they have a good industrial park capable of manufacturing light-to-medium weapons and other important items - Iraq had a tiny industrial park (except for the oil sector).  The resistance, in case of an invasion (which I still doubt) will be tremendous! They have certainly the atomic bomb but presently no means (a missile) to pour Israel for instance but they can let several artifacts in the eventual route of American & Allied forces - not counting the philosophy of flattened land, meaning the destruction of refineries, pipeways and oil pits. Honestly, I believe that only a mad, mad, mad man is able to take this enterprise... but since the name Bush is cited I fear he'll take it.

With regard to Irans military capability, it is far greater than Iraqs, but there is no evidence that they have an A bomb at present. They have been customers of the Russians for some time, and the Russians may have sold them 'Sunburn' missiles which are like highly advanced Cruise missiles that fly at just 60 feet, at MK2. They would be armed with conventional warheads, though. In any case they have other conventionally armed missiles capable of striking Israel, and if they are attacked they will not think twice about using them. The only way they could have acquired a nuclear weapon is through the 'black market' perhaps laying their hands on one of the many 'suitcase nukes' that (allegedly) went 'missing' after the USSR collapsed. The Russians would be violation of the NPT if they had openly sold nuclear weapons to Iran. America would not have let that pass un-noticed.

There was a rumour circulating on the web - although mainly on websites that were blatantly anti Semitic - that the Russians had already positioned Sunburn missiles with 200KT nuclear payloads near to Damascus in case of an Israeli assault on either Iran or Syria. But the language on some of those sites is so rabid and terrifying, it's hard to take them seriously.

This is a good example..

http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html - http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html

Sean Trane wrote: Atkingani wrote: Well, the task with Iran must be great...  Great analysis of Iran, but: Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and has a huge population also 4 times that of Iraq. Iranian people is more educated and concerned and they are basically of the shi'a sect - no religious divisions like in Iraq.  This remains to be really seen. The Kurdish monorities as well as the Azeris and Turkmens are Sunnites I think As long as I know, except for minorities, well integrated, of azeris and turcomens the population is homogeneous with the same persian background - no great ethnic divisions like in Iraq.  You forgot the Kurds and the Baloutch who regularly dream od Kurdistan and Baloutchistan (close to Pakistan) Iran has also very good Armed Forces and the ayatollahs are not silly guys like Saddam I personnaly think of Saddam as anythiing but silly: he kept - through blodshed I agree - peace among all factions , something that is impossible for anyone else in the last 200 years ; they have a good industrial park capable of manufacturing light-to-medium weapons and other important items - Iraq had a tiny industrial park (except for the oil sector).  The armed forces were unable to beat a relatively weak regime of Irak and nothing is to tell us that they have bettered themselves since, but I sure as hell would not want to even check on it or even call a bluff!! The resistance, in case of an invasion (which I still doubt) will be tremendous! Agreed They have certainly the atomic bomb but presently no means (a missile) to pour Israel for instance but they can let several artifacts in the eventual route of American & Allied forces - not counting the philosophy of flattened land, meaning the destruction of refineries, pipeways and oil pits. I do not even think that this flattened land strategy has even occured to Iran, they are fanatical enough to die while fighting. Honestly, I believe that only a mad, mad, mad man is able to take this enterprise... but since the name Bush is cited I fear he'll take it. Trust Dubya to do something that stupid!!!

Thanks, Sean.  Merci pour la leçon (d'accord "Cours de Langue et de Civilization Française", Librairie Hachette, 1966).

Blacksword wrote: Atkingani wrote: Well, the task with Iran must be great... Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and has a huge population also 4 times that of Iraq. Iranian people is more educated and concerned and they are basically of the shi'a sect - no religious divisions like in Iraq.  As long as I know, except for minorities, well integrated, of azeris and turcomens the population is homogeneous with the same persian background - no great ethnic divisions like in Iraq.  Iran has also very good Armed Forces and the ayatollahs are not silly guys like Saddam; they have a good industrial park capable of manufacturing light-to-medium weapons and other important items - Iraq had a tiny industrial park (except for the oil sector).  The resistance, in case of an invasion (which I still doubt) will be tremendous! They have certainly the atomic bomb but presently no means (a missile) to pour Israel for instance but they can let several artifacts in the eventual route of American & Allied forces - not counting the philosophy of flattened land, meaning the destruction of refineries, pipeways and oil pits. Honestly, I believe that only a mad, mad, mad man is able to take this enterprise... but since the name Bush is cited I fear he'll take it.   With regard to Irans military capability, it is far greater than Iraqs, but there is no evidence that they have an A bomb at present. They have been customers of the Russians for some time, and the Russians may have sold them 'Sunburn' missiles which are like highly advanced Cruise missiles that fly at just 60 feet, at MK2. They would be armed with conventional warheads, though. In any case they have other conventionally armed missiles capable of striking Israel, and if they are attacked they will not think twice about using them. The only way they could have acquired a nuclear weapon is through the 'black market' perhaps laying their hands on one of the many 'suitcase nukes' that (allegedly) went 'missing' after the USSR collapsed. The Russians would be violation of the NPT if they had openly sold nuclear weapons to Iran. America would not have let that pass un-noticed. There was a rumour circulating on the web - although mainly on websites that were blatantly anti Semitic - that the Russians had already positioned Sunburn missiles with 200KT nuclear payloads near to Damascus in case of an Israeli assault on either Iran or Syria. But the language on some of those sites is so rabid and terrifying, it's hard to take them seriously. This is a good example.. http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html - http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html

I also thought of Pakistan... and their atomic capability.

Oh dear.

I hope my Collage cd gets here before the worlds ends. I really want to give it a listen.

Update..

The US will 'insist' that Iran is brought before the UN. Condoleeza Rice believes that the Russian compromise plan is just a delaying tactic...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652948.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652948.stm

This is not headline news here in the UK anymore. By my twisted paranoid reckoning, that means it's more serious than they're letting on.

Blacksword wrote: Update.. The US will 'insist' that Iran is brought before the UN. Condoleeza Rice believes that the Russian compromise plan is just a delaying tactic... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652948.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652948.stm This is not headline news here in the UK anymore. By my twisted paranoid reckoning, that means it's more serious than they're letting on.

I think Iran can count on permanent security member China to back them up on this one.

Sean Trane wrote: Blacksword wrote: Update.. The US will 'insist' that Iran is brought before the UN. Condoleeza Rice believes that the Russian compromise plan is just a delaying tactic... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652948.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652948.stm This is not headline news here in the UK anymore. By my twisted paranoid reckoning, that means it's more serious than they're letting on. I think Iran can count on permanent security member China to back them up on this one.

I'm sure China will veto any resolution, that will mean no sanctions for Iran.

However, as has been proved with Iraq. We dont need the UN's blessing to start bombing people (apparently) The US, Israel and whoever else is part of this 'coalition of the willing' will get to where they need to be no matter what. 

Blacksword wrote: However, as has been proved with Iraq. We dont need the UN's blessing to start bombing people (apparently) The US, Israel and whoever else is part of this 'coalition of the willing' will get to where they need to be no matter what.

The sad fact is that recently the 'coalition of the willing' have had a war every few years (Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq again). I was hoping that the last Iraqi mess would have been the last one. Dream on.

krusty wrote: It appears the USA are now "bullying" other countries again to side with them as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4647956.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4647956.stm "Lines will be drawn, are you with us or against us, etc ,etc"

Things are working out great for Bush this time round. A conservative has just been voted into power in Canada, pledging to 'mend' Canada's relationship with the US. France is on board this time, as is Germany with their new conservative chancellor.

I dont think they'll have to bully to many people for support. What makes me laugh - not that it's funny - is that sanctions are imposed on India for nuclear testing, the US get them lifted promising to flog them even more nuclear technology, while India borders another nuclear power who happens to be an ideological enemy. Surely no one has forgotten just how close India and Pakistan came to full blown nuclear war about three years ago?! It's a very dangerous region of the world, and no one has ever taken issue with either. Then there's Iran who want to develop nuclear power, and have the right to do so, and we're gearing up for war, just in case they make a bomb one day

It seems that the USA only "bully" nations that don't use their nuclear technology.  

We had some problems months ago, here in Brazil, but when Brazilian Nuclear Agency agreed to buy some items from US companies the complaints decreased/disappeared.

BTW, more and more in Latin America new governments are being elected and wishing distance from the USA. Some like Argentina and Venezuela are declaredly anti-USA. Let's see what direction the new president of Bolivia will take. This year, 2006, we'll have presidential elections in Brazil, Peru and Argentina (Chile already made their election and a woman with socialist background was elected).

Not even the British media are as hysterical and intent on whipping up hatred and mistrust as this..

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060126-083812-6937r.htm - http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060126-083812-6937r. htm

I love the phrase 'Emerging regional stability'  In the week that Hamas was democratically elected to power, and the week that Britain announced it was sending another 3000 troops to Afghanistan. Iran is apparently responsible for destroying this stability.

Blacksword wrote: Not even the British media are as hysterical and intent on whipping up hatred and mistrust as this.. http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060126-083812-6937r.htm - http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060126-083812-6937r. htm I love the phrase 'Emerging regional stability'  In the week that Hamas was democratically elected to power, and the week that Britain announced it was sending another 3000 troops to Afghanistan. Iran is apparently responsible for destroying this stability.

The Palestinian election was clearly undemocratic, as it failed to return a conservative government committed to reducing the tax burden on the already wealthy, allowing corporations to write their own legislation and scrapping any form of social welfare. If we start accepting election results based on the wishes of the electorate we'll be in all kinds of trouble!

As for Iran - it's just the thing to take people's minds off the problems being experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq. Expect to read some alarming but rather vague 'intelligence reports' from Tehran over the next few months.

Syzygy wrote: Blacksword wrote: Not even the British media are as hysterical and intent on whipping up hatred and mistrust as this.. http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060126-083812-6937r.htm - http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060126-083812-6937r. htm I love the phrase 'Emerging regional stability'  In the week that Hamas was democratically elected to power, and the week that Britain announced it was sending another 3000 troops to Afghanistan. Iran is apparently responsible for destroying this stability. The Palestinian election was clearly undemocratic, as it failed to return a conservative government committed to reducing the tax burden on the already wealthy, allowing corporations to write their own legislation and scrapping any form of social welfare. If we start accepting election results based on the wishes of the electorate we'll be in all kinds of trouble! As for Iran - it's just the thing to take people's minds off the problems being experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq. Expect to read some alarming but rather vague 'intelligence reports' from Tehran over the next few months.

Well, was it not Winston Churchill who claimed that the best argument AGAINST democracy was a 'five minute conversation with the average voter'

Afghanistan is rarely in the news these days. It's not a good story. It supposed to be a peaceful democratic country now, since the Taliban were overthrown. Ok, women dont have to wear Bhurkas anymore, people can go to the cinema now and then and listen to music, but all this wonderful freedom remains set against a backdrop of bloodshed, and an ongoing mistrust of the US and UK among many Afghan people.

I expect Iran will be referred to the UNSC. Any resolution will be vetoed, and in the months that follow Israel will act unilaterally with 'surgical' air strikes on Irans suspected nuclear facilities. Whether or not the conflict escalates depends on how Iran reacts, and how in turn America responds to that reaction.

It seems to me like a funny story that the 5 countries that are permanent members (China, Russia, France, Great Britain and the United States) have decided to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council for its nuclear programme.

China, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, Great Britain and the United States have nuclear weapons.

I don’t think that those who possess atomic weapons have thus the legitimate right to decide who can have them and who cannot.
At the most, they can propose that no country has them.
Why don’t they ask China to destroy all its atomic weapons?

But perhaps to enter the atomic club you need good qualities that Iran doesn’t yet have. Like, for example, being a permanent member of the Security Council, or being a super-power or, even better being an ally of the United States.

And it’s right like that, in fact, according to the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty, only those who have already proliferated can proliferate.

(Beppe Glillo, 4 February 2006)

gdub411 wrote: Is this a discussion about Iran or another anti-american thread?

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

^

There is a difference between being anti Amercan and disagreeing with the actions of your president. No one should need reminding that half of Europe are right behind the Whitehouse when it comes to dealing with Iran. For the record I think Blair, Chirac, and Merkal (or whatever her name is) are just as big a bunch of &rseholes as anyone in the Bush administration.

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. 

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

It's believed that NK has between 6 and 10 bombs, but possibly no effective delivery system. Whatever the specifics it appears they have a few bombs. Thats why we have not bothered them, and possibly never will unless they actually attack South Korea or Japan.

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.

Blacksword wrote: ^ There is a difference between being anti Amercan and disagreeing with the actions of your president. No one should need reminding that half of Europe are right behind the Whitehouse when it comes to dealing with Iran. For the record I think Blair, Chirac, and Merkal (or whatever her name is) are just as big a bunch of &rseholes as anyone in the Bush administration.

Agreed totally. 

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&code=WOK20060219&articleId=2002 - 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 - 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.

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.

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?

Blacksword wrote: 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?

Maybe we were just lucky that the cold war didn't escalate into something worse. If too many people get their hands on nuclear weapons then there's always the worry of someone trying to use them. It's like in USA, there are lots of guns but knowing that other people have guns doesn't stop people using them. It's incredibly scary that there might just be some people mad enough to try using nuclear weapons. That is my biggest fear for the world at the moment.

That's not to say that you should just attack everyone who wants to get nuclear weapons though. That's a bit like firing a gun into nest of bees.

What's the answer ... who knows.

Blacksword wrote: 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.

andy, Mark*

let's face it !! Russia has a very different geographical situation than Western nations do about Iran. To us, westereners, Iran is just one country is a very difficult area and is not controlling much

But to Russia outside of the fact that Iran is almost a close neighbor (actually they were so during the USSR throughe Azerbaidjan and the old Turkestan - later Turmenistan etc...)  , the shortest access to Southern seas is Iran. >>> economically speaking this means Iran is someone to contend with

I mean the Black Sea or Barents Sea or the Sea of Otskov (above japan) are hardly axed towards world econmy>>> In this regards we could understand Russia looking after its own interest in Collaborating with Iran; There are also the problems in Tadjikistan (Iranian dialects - speaking countries) and even though they are Christians the Ossetia Russian republic is also Persanophone!!

Knowing this and that in the Caucasian mountains , only the Ossetes are the only Christians people (all of the others are Suffist Muslim or worsely fanatical Muslims such as the Tchetchens ) and therefore the only reasonably safe route towards Geogia and Armenia is through Ossetia.

You can bet that Persia/Iran being very proud people about their origins and their great past - they are NOT Arabs  (surrounded by Arabs on the South and West and Turcs-speaking on the north and east)  and surrounded by hostile Sunnites Muslims all around, they make sure that the Cultural heritage (through the language anyway) is being respected in other parts of the world. This dimension is one more reason why Russia and Iran are likely to cooperate. >> this is why Russia offered Iran to enrich its Uranium on Russian facilities.

Bob Greece wrote: Blacksword wrote: 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? Maybe we were just lucky that the cold war didn't escalate into something worse. If too many people get their hands on nuclear weapons then there's always the worry of someone trying to use them. It's like in USA, there are lots of guns but knowing that other people have guns doesn't stop people using them. It's incredibly scary that there might just be some people mad enough to try using nuclear weapons. That is my biggest fear for the world at the moment. That's not to say that you should just attack everyone who wants to get nuclear weapons though. That's a bit like firing a gun into nest of bees. What's the answer ... who knows.

Yes, we were lucky during the cold war. It's ironic that I used to be a member of CND and campaign for unilateral nuclear disarament in the 80's. Years later, I have partially succomb to the MAD argument. I would rather the whole world disarm, but no country will, and I dont just mean the US and Israel.

There are people mad enough to use them, given what they believe to be the right excuse. They currently reside in Washington, London, Paris and Tel Aviv. The world would be better if we dont allow Iran to go down the nuclear road, but I think it would have been better if we had not given them a reason to want a bomb in the first place.

This of course assumes that they do have a WMD program. They may not. I'm not going to take the word of the US or UK at face value. The IAEA have so far not confirmed that Iran DO have a program.

In the news today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4897786.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4897786.stm

The "long war" - the new cold war.

Bob Greece wrote: In the news today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4897786.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4897786.stm The "long war" - the new cold war.

It's all gone rather 'Orwell' hasn't it....

Just as Orwell predicted, we live in a world in a constant state of conflict. Fighting an anonymous enemy we rarely see any evidence of. Because of this conflict it has - apparently - become necessary to curtail certain liberties. Our streets bristle with security cameras, there's talk of ID cards. To voice certain opinions in public is now a crime. Spin and 'double speak' has become the norm in politics, and despite huge advances in science and technology, despite our belief that we are more advanced than ever before, still half the world starves starves to death.

Our leaders like us to have something to fear. It used to be communists now its Muslims, because of course before 9/11 there were no disenchanted Muslims and the terror threat never existed until then. Incorrect! Buts thats how it feels for most of the 'proles' dribble fed little drops of half truth from their crooked media. There is a deliberate move afoot to incite racial hatred and conflict by our leaders. We need an enemy, and they are relying on our stupidity and our obsession with the media to swallow all their gobsh!te and lies.

Blacksword wrote: It's all gone rather 'Orwell' hasn't it.... Just as Orwell predicted, we live in a world in a constant state of conflict.

Yes, that's one of Orwell's predictions from 1984 that isn't talked about so much but is very relevant. Everyone knows about Big Brother watching you but not so many people remember that in Orwell's 1984 there was always an enemy and that the enemy keeps changing.

Jim Garten wrote: Blacksword wrote: Spin and 'double speak' has become the norm in politics Also, has anyone else noticed the increased use by politicians of the word "transparency" to denote openness and the lack of hidden agendas? To my mind this is either their ignorance of the true meaning of the word (not unlikely, I know), or their relying on the general public's ignorance of the fact that something which is transparent cannot be seen and is therefore hidden from view (double-speak, indeed)... ...or am I just being cynical?

No, you're just wide awake and able to see things for how they really are. You can see beyond the smoke and mirrors. Well done, you're probably in a minority.

Iran has just announced they enriched Uranium (low grade 3%) for the first time. Washington has described this as a 'Step in the wrong direction'

Uranium needs enriching to 80% for weapons use.

Well done Iran!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4900260.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4900260.stm

I'm new here and here's my two penneth........

I'm from the UK and Tony Blair has just announced that nuclear power for electricity purposes is still on the agenda.  That makes me embarassed that we should be telling another country not to develop it.

With regards to nuclear weapons, we have them.  Once again, how can we tell someone not to develop them when we have them. It's like telling someone not to smoke whilst lighting up.

Also, Iran has the USA occupying countries to the left and right of it so it's no wonder they feel threatened.

And why the hell didn't we (and the USA) use this sort of 'diplomacy' when India and Pakistan were developing nukes and on the brink of war?  No oil, perhaps?

This whole episode stinks.  Like Iraq.