Woohoo!
7% (1 vote)
Woohoo!
7% (1 vote)
Tut tut.
29% (4 votes)
Tut tut.
29% (4 votes)
Stupid options Irfan.
14% (2 votes)
Stupid options Irfan.
14% (2 votes)
Total votes: 14
User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 21 Apr 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
- 5 May 2024 - 11:00 to 16:30
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
[size=18]Germany attacks US on Iran threat [/size]
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has warned the US to back away from the possibility of military action against Iran over its nuclear programme.
His comments come a day after President Bush reiterated that force remained an option but only as a last resort.
Iran has resumed what it says is a civilian nuclear research programme but which the West fears could be used to develop nuclear arms.
Germany, France and the UK have led efforts to end the crisis peacefully.
Mr Schroeder's rejection of force came at the official launch of his party's election campaign.
The BBC's Ray Furlong - reporting from Hanover - says there was an echo of his last election campaign three years ago, when his steadfast opposition to the use of force against Iraq helped get him re-elected.
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4149090.stm]BBC[/url]
the only way i see out of war is if Iran manages to get nukes before being attacked.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
i feel bush fears and does not want other countries to have nuclear weapons but his got plenty himself i just thnk he doesnt want any other country to defend themselves when he goes round bombing them. he said the same about iraq and them having weapons of mass destruction and later found out that there was nothing there by one of his own people and didnt admit it.
i think bush wants control of every country. everycountry has a right to defend themselves if thay are under threat
Bush is a total prat, what more can you expect from him!
Do I have to remind you all that it's very unlikely Bush himself has any influence of policy in his nation?
This is a man who started reading a children's book when he heard about the 9/11 attacks.
Lets be realistic.
I have scouted a few nonmuslim forums (they are not related to anything important), and came across opinions that its ok to attack to stop others from nukes?!?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
i tink george bush will try and take over iran cause of it oil etc.
and so he can base as many soilders around saudi arabia as he can
cause i tink to the near future he will atack saudi cause its a powerful country with everthin he wants gold- oil -money
salam
[/quote] allah has always taken care with evil people like the pharoh
he might take care of bush if he gets really evil
:evil:
Kasim
he might take care of bush if he gets really evil
:evil:[/quote]
No...
Saudi Arabia and Israel are our closest allies in the region. We need them both equally (although we may not particularly like them at any given moment). The alliance with Saudi Arabia is at the cornerstone of our foreign policy in the middle east. They provide us with military bases, oil and an arab partner in the arab world, we provide them with our military support, constant revenue and we look the other way at their illiberal undemocratic society.
Our cheif concern with Iran is that they would develop a nuclear weapon and threaten the United States, Israel, or Saudi Arabia.
The Iranians are proceding with an illegal program. Why should we take their word they won't build illegal nuclear weapons?
Especially when they see that centcom is stretched.
oi tigger is that u?
Indeed it is!
How are you? - and why does Judda want you banned?
and why do you want Pimp banned?
And what precisely [i]are[/i] lochs and bagels?
lol i duno why sum1 would want an angel like me banned
why i want "pimp" AKA "judda" banned all the reasons are given on the thread...
Lochs are lochs and bagels are sumthin to eat like a roll thing!?
lol obviously he is a lunatic... I just caught some of his previous posts.
There was a morning reception for all those flying out a last week and a couple of the people I met were really pressuring me to try these "lochs and bagels" I noticed the word Loch and (because I am so smart) figured it was scottish since it's the "word" yall use for "Lake" but on second thought it could be jewish...
Totally disgusting incidentally.
That and the fact that Iranian oil will go to China, and that Iran may soon become a powerful ally of China.
Actually that's perfectly within our interests. Presently China is growing too fast to stop - we all know that. (It's also in our economic interests to allow China to grow). Unfortunately this growth has put a strain on formerly earmarked oil from traditional arab allies by underbidding by China which has contributed to our recent oil shortage. Little of our oil comes from Iran since the revolution (although before they were a significant contributor). If Iran supplements that arab state oil - as believed it will - it could seriously reduce the strain.
As for concrete steel and lumber Russia could be a valuable trade partner for China - rather than Japan, and North America which our traditionally "American Suppliers" - and boy it would be nice to kill the China factor there - might save us from a housing bubble burst.
Anyway, our primary concern with Iran is security for Israel and maintaining the present order of the region (that is... the hegemony, not antonym of chaos)
Edit: After all that I really didn't say much about the relationship between Iran and China - Whoo boy here's a big topic.
Frankly we are not now, in the future, or in the future beyond that going to invade China. We are not going to invade if they invade Taiwan (and they know it which is why they are buildin a bridge) and we are not going to invade if they decide to randomly massacre one quarter of their population as a direct affront to human rights. And there is a very simple reason why
Well... Actually there are about 600 billion reasons why annually. We are interdepedent economically. - They know it too. We could construct a 0981082093 foot statue dedicated to consumerist capitolism (maybe mickey mouse or something) right on their border with a big american flag waving high and proud and then we could march the entire pacific command around said statue singing the battle hymn of the republic, and they won't fire a shot.
We are at a permanent stalemate.
Present order? What order?
Any attack on Iran will antagonise Iraqi Shias and Hezballah.
Plus it will another country on the list of Muslim anti-US greivances.
Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran...
American hegemony via Saudi Arabia and Israel. Our interests carry an undue weight in the region because our tanks are parked in Jeddah and our bombers are on the field in Israel, furthermore those states have very large sophistocated militaries due to our assistance. A nuclear Iran means somebody can stand up to Israel or Saudi Arabia or both.
And then we have trouble.
We like to make sure that if anybody is going to have nuclear weapons it is a country we trust and have good relations with and will guard our interests. Iran... definitely not.
An attack might tick off other nations in the area - but if it prevents Iran from going nuclear, at least our power bases will remain in tact.
To say nothing of the consequences of Iran providing nuclear weapons to terrorists.
So it's all about America and what it wants.
That old chesnut.
Yes.
Disprove it.
This lie was wheeled out against Iraq. Now it's being used for Iran.
Iran at present would have no desire whatsoever to give nukes to terrorists. If it did, then which terrorist groups whould it give them to?
Any nuclear attack on Israel or Saudi Arabia by terrorists armed by Iran would result in the nuclear fallout causing immense enviromental damage to the whole region including Iran.
If Israel is nuked no doubt it will retaliate against the perceived attacker. No doubt US will muscle in too. Same applies to Saudi. Very serious risk of all-out global war.
Iran has no interest in giving nukes to terrorists. This is just a Neo-Con scare tactic.
Actually in Iraq the administration said that the regime [i]was[/i] aiding the [i]911 terrorists[/i]. The argument simply states that there is a high probability Iran could arm terrorists with nuclear weapons. There is a mountain of evidence (some they don't even deny) that Iran harbors, and supports certain terrorist groups -of course they deny the groups are terrorists, it is after all an ugly word - there is also a mountain of evidence the regime pretty well hates the Great Satan. Why is it inconcievable they would arm terrorists with a nuke to later deny accountability?
As for which terrorist group. Most likely Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, or the PFLP-GC. The groups they have been sponsering since at least 2000.
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/sponsor.html#Iran
(Clinton Admin)
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/
(Bush Admin)
And that's the state department - not the military, during not one but two (very different) administrations
But does it really matter [i]which[/i] group they would support militarily? It's simply an educated conjecture - of which the price of finding out would be too great to try.
As for collateral damage I think you are missing the point. The whole purpose of using a terrorist organization is to deny accountability. Tehran knows that no country would ever be able to retaliate with nukes without 100% proof positive which you cannot get with a terrorist organization.
As for Israel retaliating, whats the point. Any war with Israel or Saudi Arabia would result in the total meltdown of the region, nuclear or not - I don't see why Tehran would care if their objective is to attack anyway. Terrorism again just gives them deniability.
My question is simple, if we have persuasive evidence Iran is willing to help terrorists in the past, is willing to engage in terrorism itself, and is clearly an enemy of the United States, why is it totally inconcievable to you that they wouldn't arm them with nukes?
And how did Billy Kristol and company sneak into this? Neocons are ideologues who would be arguing attack Iran since they are ripe for democracy. Their platform is republican realism.
And that was a load of rubbish. There were no credible links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
The claim that Iran would arm terrorists with nukes is purely hypothetical. No basis to go to war over, let alone risk an all-out global conflict.
The Iranian government is not made-up of raving lunatic irrational men with death wishes. They are skilled and cultured people with the kind of political, economic, social interests that American politicians have. Iranians are not going to give nukes to terrorists. You think just because they are ‘dirty ragheads’ they live for war and the destruction of the Great Satan?
Of that list Iran is closest to Hizballah.
HAMAS are Sunni. Shia Iran is not likely to give nukes to any militant ‘Wahabis’.
Palestine Islamic Jihad is likewise Sunni.
PFLP-GC is Christian socialist. Nuff said.
Iran may support these groups but it is in no way likely to give them nukes. In the rapid-loyalty-changing culture of the politics of the region, such a move would be very dangerous for Iran itself.
Supporting, funding, arming is one thing, but nukes are a whole new ball-game.
Any other country would very carefully consider who the attacker is in the event of a nuclear strike, but Iran would readily let terrorists have the use of a nuclear weapon?
What makes everyone else in the region so rational and understanding and Iran so irrational and belligerent?
Again, why would Israel and SA weigh up the pros and cons of nuclear war and Iran just go all-out and let suicidal terrorists have nukes?
The same accusations of terrorism can be made against the US. But the idea that US would arm terrorists with nukes is ridiculous. What makes Iran so different?
I can see why US would fear a nuclear-armed Iran. But the idea that Iran would give them to terrorists is absurd. What is it about the Iranian mindset or biological make-up that would make them do such a thing?
The Neo-Cons want this war. This 'Iranian nukes to terrorists' hullabaloo is part of their propaganda in the run-up to war.
Yea... and? Like I said there are proven links between Iran and terrorist groups - some they dont even deny. And the fear is that they [i]would[/i] arm terrorists with nukes, not that they are linked with Al Qaeda and attacked the US on 911.
You are only further substantiating my point that this is not the argument brought up for Iraq.
When the price is a nuclear attack against the United States it is certainly worth pursuing. Let's make one thing clear. They are illegally pursuing nuclear technology. If they pursue a weapons program that is even MORE illegal. If they are already breaking the laws that govern what they do with nuclear technology - and they aid terrorists, I don't see how any reasonable -uninterested- party could deny there is a serious possibility they could take that a step further against their sworn enemy.
As for global conflict - be realistic.
That's a cheap trick.
Of course they are neanderthal raghead thugs - dirty dirty dirty dirty ragheads. Everybody knows this.
Actually I think they live for the destruction of the Great Satan because their skilled cultured leaders say they are. Holding civilian American's hostage in their own embassy. Totally rational. - Nothing to be concerned about there. The fact is pretty clear that Iran is a declared enemy of the United States. As I already showed they have clearly used their sponsership of terrorism to exact indirect damage on the CIVILIAN POPULATIONS of their enemies (ie Israel via Hezbullah and Hamas). Why don't you stay on track with facts et cetera rather than playing the "American Racist" card?
What precisely is your point... that they don't support these groups? Do you have some kind of evidence or something?
So wait... now you are saying you agree that Iran supports these groups. It is not in the best interest in the region to support terrorism AT ALL, especially when the United States is running around toppling regimes that support terrorism. It sure would be dangerous - but again, deniability that is the beauty of terrorism and the exact reason why they have no been held accountable. We know they have aided terrorists and put "economic sanctions" on them, but military punitive measures? from the US or Israel? Zippo, nill, nothing. They can get away with it.
Supporting, funding, arming is one thing, but nukes are a whole new ball-game.
Precisely why I don't care to play ball
Because they support terrorist organizations - Not exactly rational behavior.
And there is the small matter of embracing "great satan" as their US foreign policy, the creation of fundamentalism, and holding US citizens hostage for kick.
Israel already has nukes, and they do not support any terrorist organization I am aware of - perhaps you have some kind of link to a reputable source I could be enlightened by?
And who said anything about giving SA nukes - No way in hell anybody on this side of the Atlantic wants to see that happen.
Biological make up? Let's stick to issues of relevancy - not attempts to make people think I am a racist because I come armed with facts and sources and you didn't pack lunch to this field trip.
They are illegally pursuing illegal weapons, are known to cohort with and aid criminal terrorist groups, and they are enemies of the US, made clear by their actions in the past and their rhetoric in the forums of world policy. Nothing biological about that at all.
The Neo-Cons are not made-up of raving lunatic irrational men with death wishes. They are skilled and cultured people with the kind of political, economic, social interests that Iranian politicians have. Neo-Cons are not going to create propaganda to start wars. You think just because they are ‘greedy republicans" they live for war and the destruction of muslim countries?
Look, I don't believe in special rules for special people. International law is clear Iran may not pursue any form of nuclear program. They aren't disputing that is the law, they are simply saying they no longer care. International law states Iran may not develop nuclear weapons, nobody is disputing this is the law, [i]you[/i] (as not even Iran has dared to publicly defy this law) are the one saying it's A-Okay for Iran to continue breaking it because they are nice people and it's so unfair the US has nukes (which we... afterall, invented) and Iran doesn't.
What you fail to establish, either out of stubborness or shear lack of information, is that the reasons Iran (and all non nuclear nations) was barred from developing nuclear technology are no longer relevant to the modern age. Do they get a bi from nonproliferation because you have a tender spot in your heart for their regime?
No wonder you cannot rationalize this argument.
I was not trying to label you as a racist. I was thinking about American attitudes in general.
A few students took some Americans hostage. Now Iran is to be forever suspected of trying to destroy America?
America has done things much worse. Like actually used an atomic bomb. Against CIVILIANS. Twice. Does this mean America is to be forever demonised?
Of that list Iran is closest to Hezballah. I am sure Iran supports many groups that are opposed to Israel. Some Iranian state institutions and Iranian ‘interest groups’ may aid Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP. But if Iran were to give these groups nukes then it is likely that Iran could end up being the target of these weapons. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are ‘Sunni’ and PFLP are Christian Socialists.
But on the top governmental level Iran backs Hezballah. But any nukes which Hezbollah receive are likely to be used against Israel. Israel is right next to Lebanon. Hezballah are based in Lebanon. Any nuclear attack on Israel would most definitely physically effect Lebanon, and Southern Lebanon at that. Southern Lebanon being where Hezballah has its power base.
The Iranians are capable rationalising the fact that giving nuclear weapons to terrorists is dangerous for everyone.
Almost every country has backed ‘terrorists’ at one point or other and justified it with ‘real politic’.
Israel has nukes. And the US quietly approves.
When India Pakistan got nukes there were sanctions.
When the possibility that Iran could get nukes military action is on the table.
When the possibility that N Korea could get nukes US assures it that it won’t be attacked.
Not going to create propaganda to start wars? That’s exactly what they did against Iraq. I suspect the US government is digging up old stories about Iran and presenting them as the face of today’s Iranian government.
I am not confident that they are not after Muslim countries. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran... soon Syria
Of course no-one should be allowed to break international law. And of course moves should be made towards decommissioning (but that’s another story).
What I have a problem with is that US is going about this all wrong. US is prepared to use military force. I am not assured that this is because of Iran’s nuclear program or because Iran is yet another sellable target in the ‘War on Terror’. And it is not as if after putting military action on the table the US is likely to take it off the table.
I am afraid that the US is being way too belligerent. Instead of exploiting Iran’s large youth demographic to push for more internal freedoms, the US is intent on war. Had this been a Democratic administration and it had not already been to war against Afghanistan and Iraq I would be less apprehensive.
By taking a belligerent stance the US radicalising the Iranian youth and making them more responsive to the Iranian establishment rather than the liberals.
Iran is not forever the sworn enemy of the US. It is possible for the two to improve ties. But it seems that’s not going to happen under this administration and a stabilised Iranian establishment.
Maybe you expect too much from me or maybe you are not prepared to give any leeway to the other side of the argument. [img]http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/9954/smile6bl.gif[/img]
I think if Iran wants nukes, let it have them.
No country is stupid enough to give nukes to terrorists.
That is guaranteed self destruction.
If Iran managed to get nukes, I don't think there would be any war. If it doesn't, I'd say 60-40 (against war, as US is tied down in other places. Even Afghanistan seems to be starting to kick off big time atm, even if it is not reported much).
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Oh I see, [i]I[/i] am not the racist, [i]Americans in general are[/i].
I hope such a sweeping indictment is backed up by some sort of study or evidence.
Yea... (am I missing something here?)
And the hostage taking had Iranian government backing, why else were the hostages freed in return for the unfreezing of 7.977 billion dollars of Iranian assets and immunity from legal action?
http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04/subs/04_a03_a04.html
Of course not, it was World War II - way different circumstances, furthermore it was the first time a nuclear bomb had ever been used, we had very little idea of what kind of destruction it would cause.
Let's not play semantic games - read the reports from 1999 and 2000 I supplied earlier, they are sponsered by the state. Not "interest groups"
It's only likely if we can prove Iran voluntarily gave terrorists a nuclear weapon (as opposed to such a weapon "being stolen"). The Iranians are intelligent enough to know it is mighty difficult to establish that. Like you said before they are sophistocated politicians. I don't understand your point about Islamic Jihad being Sunni and PFLP being Christian Socialist... Who cares what their ideology if they are still supporting them? As the reports from 1999 and 2000 clearly indicate as well as other sources:
http://www.meib.org/articles/0211_s1.htm
So... it sounds like what you are saying is that there [i]is[/i] a possibility Iran could give nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization (You identify Hezballah) however now your argument is that Hezballah - being the practical fellows they are, wouldn't [i]use[/i] the weapons because their favorite target would be close to their power base?
Well, at least you admitted it is entirely possible Iran could supply one of the terrorist organizations they work with, with nuclear weapons.
So let's work on that vein. Consider the "dirty bomb" the likely weapon of choice should a terrorist get their hands on a nuclear weapon. - As Chechen terrorists did in Izmailovo Park, Moscow in 1995
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,725954,00.html Scroll down to the bottom, it is provided as background information to the main story)
Dirty bombs are pretty good at messing stuff up, although they do not cause the region mass destruction a nuclear warhead would cause, they can take out a couple city blocks and leave a nasty nuclear clean up behind.
That is precisely the kind of weapon terrorists are presently seeking (also mentioned at the bottom of that article). Because it can localize damage, and it has a tremendous fear factor. It is concievable to attack Israel without hurting Syria.
Basically my point is this, if you are saying that we can rest easy with nuclear bombs in the hands of terrorist organizations because they are responsible enough to "not blow up their political bases" I think you are giving them a little too much credit.
I don't see how you can say that when they clearly don't believe arming terrorists with explosives, guns, and providing training and money is dangerous for everyone...
Weak argument.
Ah you are making a mistake in distinction. Israel and N. Korea were at way more advanced stages in their nuclear program by the time we caught them (same with China and their ICBMs) At that point it was either war with a nuclear power (obviously not so with Israel) or do nothing.
Pakistan and India were caught red-handed in the early stages of their development unfortunately we did nothing serious to stop them and TADA two of Asia's best buddies have nuclear weapons.
Do you know anything about the Neocons or are you just doing the whipping boy thing? Name a neocon pundit.
The neocon platform consists of large government, greater acceptance of social services, less emphasis on social conservatism, and an intense adherence to republican realism (that more democracies means more peace). ( http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002840 )
Due to their adherence to republican realism they simply believe that after defeating a country it is our duty to leave them on the democratic path when we relinquish our responsibilities ( http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/04/ ). This is not the same as nation building (which they expressly reject ( http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/2004nc03.htm )) - invading for the purpose of creating democracy.
As for if they are leading some sort of shadow war against muslims, that is absolutely false. Their leading line for Iraq is that they believe it is racist to think that muslims cannot live in a free constitutional liberal democracy.
([u]The Future of Freedom[/u] Fareed Zakaria: 2003)
How are you coming on thinking up that pundit?
There are lot's of em, from the far right of the neocons in William Kristol, Robert Novak or Richard Perle, to the far left of the neocon spectrum in Colin Powel and Fareed Zakaria.
The latter [u]is[/u] a muslim. But i'm sure you knew all this.
Of course you believe Iran should be allowed to break international law - you have been arguing that it's no big deal this whole time, and that the US would be unjustified in using force to prevent it from happening. That's how the law works, if you break it you are met with force.
Yes we are prepared to use force, as the President said all options are on the table. It's an option, not our primary tool of diplomacy - and nobody has stated the primacy of the use of force. I and the administration are simply saying if Iran cannot be pursuaded through diplomatic action or economic enticement to abandon it's illegal program there is a clear security risk which would - at that time - probably warrant military force.
You want us to take the military off the table - why? That would merely tie our backs up and put us in yet another situation where a shaky state has it's hands on nuclear weapons - this time a state which is clearly aligned against the United States, and is in league with terrorists.
Actually that is part of our long term strategy with Iran - and surprisingly it is a neocon innovation.
The Iran Democracy Act ( http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s1082.html ) was actually introduced by several leading neocons - Sen. Rick Santorum (a pretty good friend of my parents incidentally) was right on top of the list
Ali Gheissari and Vali Nasr's abstract on the liberal youth in Iran is quite enlightening in this respect.
( http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol11/0406_gheissarinasr.asp )
What belligerent stand? We are perfectly willing to negotiate with Tehran, diplomatically and economically so that they do not pursue this illegal path which we have made clear we would understand to be a security risk to the US. Diplomacy first - it's been that way for months - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4340453.stm - If Tehran wants to snub our generousity in this matter and pursue it's illegal nuclear program - and then pursues a weapons program, we have made it clear we have few other options than war. You said these people are sophistocated politicians - where is their judgement?
They are the sworn enemy of the United States so long as they act, and talk in a manner pursuant with that statement. We are not going to look the other way when a regime which has been belligerent literally since it's inception toward the United States attempts to override the laws governing the control of the most destructive weapons of all time it's a very serious matter. Bush has been more than reasonable in offering to pull Iran into the WTO, in return for their simple compliance with a law designed to prevent nuclear holocaust.
Probably
[b]
The Nukes Of Hazard? [/b]
If a Martian landed on our green planet and took any interest in the news it could be forgiven for being extremely perplexed by reported events. It would be confused in particular by events in the international arena. Why is it okay for some countries to take a particular course of action but not others? This is not logical. Take for example the question of Iran and nuclear power.
This particular topic seems to generate a lot of heat in the media but not much light, so in the interests of balance let's just look at the cold hard facts.
There are two basic types of nuclear reaction - nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission was used in the atom bomb and nuclear fusion (thermo-nuclear) was used in the more deadly hydrogen bomb. Nuclear fission can also be used to produce electricity and is used for this purpose in at least 32 countries around the world.
The economics of nuclear electricity production are rather skewed. The infrastructure, safety and security costs are enormous but they are offset by miniscule generating costs in fact news reels in 1950's Britain even speculated that one day electricity from nuclear power would be so cheap to generate it would be "given away free".
Fossil fuels such as oil are finite and are contributing to global warming. Iran is a big producer of oil but recognises that it too one day will have to find alternative means of energy production.
The One-Eyed Watchdog
The I.A.E.A (International Atomic Energy Agency) is the global nuclear "watchdog". Its job is to report on nuclear activity to the United Nations. Its website contains lots of useful information about nuclear power. It even has a section on country profiles that lists pertinent data on the counties that have nuclear programmes (really useful) except…..Israel (less useful). Isn't it curious that the IAEA doesn't "have" any data on Israel's nuclear programme? According to this glorious institution there are "no operational nuclear reactors in Israel". Better tell that to the Israeli's then. The IAEA's role is to promote "the peaceful use of nuclear technology" yet the IAEA has become increasingly shrill lately in its dealings with Iran. This is very curious.
Israel has both nuclear energy and weapons programmes from the 1950's. It has a nuclear power plant located in Dimona in the southern Negev Desert. It is estimated to have over four hundred nuclear weapons in its arsenal. This includes hydrogen bombs. These weapons are deployed using the classic trident strategy in land based nuclear missile silos, air based nuclear bombs / missiles and sea based missiles from submarines. When the Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu fled to the UK in 1986 to reveal to the world Israel's clandestine nuclear programme he was kidnapped by Israeli agents and smuggled back to Israel where he was jailed for 18 years in solitary confinement.
Stop The Press!
Britain itself has just started planning for a new generation of nuclear power plants. Ministers state that because the deployment of these nuclear plants could take 20 years, planning must be started soon. Britain is also planning to upgrade its Trident weapons.
Recent revelations show that Britain helped start Israel's nuclear programme by selling it the "heavy water" required for nuclear fission. It even kept this a secret and hid the transaction by showing the purchaser as Norway on the paperwork. Norway was the original supplier of "heavy water" to Britain. It even hid this sale from the Americans.
The Americans are the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons in war. They attacked the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. With two atom bombs killed over 200,000 people. After this event America continued nuclear weapons development at an ever increasing pace. It carried out over 317 "atmospheric tests" (nuclear explosions carried out in the air, sea or above ground). After the USSR also acquired nuclear weapons in 1949 and under huge international pressure, a treaty was signed and the two countries agreed to stop atmospheric testing in 1963. Subsequent testing was then carried out underground but other nations such as Britain and France having recently acquired the technology continued atmospheric testing. Computing power is now sophisticated enough to simulate nuclear explosions so now the cyber realm is used to test ever deadlier devices.
Iran is trying to develop nuclear power and categorically denied it wants to develop nuclear weapons. In fact it is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) yet anyone watching the news would be under the impression that the reality was the other way round.
Under immense pressure from the West sorry "international community" Iran agreed to a self imposed moratorium on developing its peaceful nuclear energy programme. Iran is not breaking any international law by restarting its research into nuclear energy.
Bad Cop - Worse Cop
Without a hint of irony, Israel and its western cronies have been determined to stop Iran from acquiring any form of nuclear technology. In the midst of the disaster that is the Iraq war the Americans cannot find the resources for another invasion and so they have decided to try to play the "bad cop" to "EU3's" good cop (Britain, France and Germany). They have tried to bully Iran into giving up any nuclear ambition. The implication is "listen to the EU3 or the Americans will attack". The newly elected President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has decided to restart the research. The IAEA has installed cameras at the Iranian research facility near the city of Isfahan so they can monitor activity at the plant.
Iran had the choice of giving up its nuclear power ambitions like the Libyans did but what have they received in return? Another option would be to develop a nuclear programme in secret until it is operational and then present the world with a fait accomplis like Pakistan. Instead the Iranians have made no secret of their quest for nuclear energy. They have cooperated with the IAEA and engaged the EU3. The press reaction however has been nothing short of hysterical. The impression given is that anyone outside the First World, especially Muslim countries, should not be allowed to develop any form of nuclear power and they won't let the facts get in the way.
So what do we hear from the Muslims of Britain on this issue?
Any support from our Muslim M.P's?
Any countering the blatant lies peddled in the media and by the media?
Not a bit of it. Read the newspapers and there are plenty of examples of correspondence by the people who view Iran as another Muslim country that should be attacked. This sentiment is then parroted by our elected representatives in the House of Commons. The silence of these very same representatives on Israeli nuclear weapons is also telling. Isn't it time our brothers and sisters in this country did something for our brothers and sisters in other countries such as Iran?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."(Mark Twain)
source: MPAC
I'm not accusing. It's a generalisation.
Edward Said, [i]Orientalism[/i].
Like you say for the US atomic bombings, different circumstances. This event took place during the revolution. US was seen as public enemy number one. The US had propped-up the tyrannical shah who had just been overthrown. US was rightly or wrongly blamed for the shah’s rule. The revolution was as much against the US as it was against the shah.
The students took the hostages by their own initiative. The government, not wanting to alienate the youth, gave tacit backing to the hostage-takers. The government, on behalf of the students, got ‘ransom’ from the US. This in the eyes of the students would have gone some way to make-up for the US’ ‘culpability’ in Iran’s dire situation.
I still don’t see why the Iranians of today have responsibility for what happened during the days of the revolution. Like I said before, this is just old stories being dug up and presented as new.
BTW ‘immunity from legal action’. Under the shah’s rule, US troops were given immunity from prosecution for any Iranian citizens they kill. If they killed an Iranian dog they would get prosecuted, but Iranian citizen - no prosecution.
How many people were they expecting to kill? 10, 20, 100 even?
I suppose this was all in the heat of war. The Iranian hostage taking was in the heat of revolution.
IRA eg were funded by American individuals. This does not mean that they were funded by the state.
Middle Eastern politics involves a lot of rapid loyalty changes. If you are gonna give anyone a nuke you want to be sure you can rely on the people you giving it to. You want to be assured of their loyalty to you. Iranian Shias are not likely to give too much support to ‘Sunni’ militant groups. In the ideology of many ‘Sunni’ militant groups Shias may as well be non-Muslims. Not only that, but extremist strands of Islam vilify Shias for their ‘heretical’ and ‘blasphemous’ beliefs. Iran cannot be guaranteed that it won’t one day be the target of any ‘Sunni’ militant groups. PFLP, aside from the fact that they are very small and don’t have much influence, are Christians. And not just Christians but socialists. Again the Iranians are not going to give them too much in the way of support.
I am merely humouring the thought that Iran would give nukes to terrorists. I am stretching my imagination to its farthest reaches. It is as absurd as the possibility that the US would give nukes to the IRA.
If the terrorists have nukes already why would they be sniffing around Iran? They can go to the former Soviet Union as the article says.
BTW didn’t John Ashcroft come on TV live from Moscow to report of a foiled ‘dirty bomb’ plot? What happened about all that?
I’m sure America has armed terrorists with explosives, guns, and provided money and training. Sorry, I forgot the convenient speech marks – ‘terrorists’.
Everyone else can back ‘terrorists’ and Iran can’t?.
I don’t see any US condemnations or even US efforts to reduce Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
I have no beef with what the Neocons envisage for domestic US policy. It is foreign policy that matters to me.
Hmm, ‘after defeating a country it is our duty to leave them on the democratic path when we relinquish our responsibilities’. So the Neocons advocate going around bombing countries and then leaving the bombed people to pick up the pieces? This cartoon comes to mind:
[img]http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2784/operationiraq0sa.jpg[/img]
Bad foreign policy IMO.
It is racist to think that all other forms of government are inadequate and that everyone else should be cajoled, forced, bombed, and killed into accepting constitutional liberal democracy. Can we expect US to bomb every Muslim country until Washington thinks it has become ‘satisfactorily democratic’?
You seem to have named some Neo-Cons for me, but the ones we seem to get on our TV screens from time to time are Richard Perle and David Frum.
I’m surprised that you mention Fareed Zakaria as a Neo-Con. I thought he was just a Muslim in the media (oh well, every day’s a school day). But this quote from an article of his is interesting:
I don’t see the US taking the threat of military force off the table. Not until they or Israel attack Iran. Bush said himself that he is ‘sceptical’ that diplomacy will work. IMO this more because of US’ determination to see Iran through rather than stubbornness on the Iranian side.
Again, had this been a Democratic administration, and it had not already been to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and it had not threatened Syria, it would have more credibility in its aspirations to uphold international law.
Instead of trying to wean Iran off from China and Russia, this administration has further demonised Iran. Instead of trying to normalize relations it has chosen to further hostilities.
I think there was an Iraq Freedom Act or something. Look where that has ended up. Why the need to cause more war, more chaos?
Far from getting the Iranian youth and Iranian liberals on-side this administration has pushed people towards the establishment and united them against a common enemy.
This administration is far too gung-ho. They don’t have the credibility to uphold international law.
dave....
take it easy son....
u only been back 5 mins, already u threatening to attack yet another land!
seriously....look at the iraq disaster...wot is the USA gonna do with this situation....i dont want iran to have nukes either....but do u think the US is gonna take another gung ho approach?
it would be foolish...
wot, realistically, is the answer? it cant be more bombing/war...
invading/attacking iran is no easy business...they have an army/population who will fight to the last....
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
lol not him again, let's also recall that Edward Said argued that the term "western" or as he called it "occidentalism" was imperialist because it implies that everything east of Europe was "oriental"
Let's just Ed back in his box where the conspiracies can't touch him.
And is that seriously all you have got in defense of your rash unjustified and prejudicial statement?
Tacit backing = backing. And how tacit is that backing when they are willing to pickup an 8 billion dollar tip? Frankly I don't care about the student's side of the story, their actions were terrorist in nature with the backing of the state. Any attempt to rationalize their "mindset" to me smacks of excuse.
Yea, why should we care about what the Iranians who are the present all-grown-up leaders of the modern regime did when they were in college?
I am sure they have matured greatly since their civilian capturing, ransoming, terrorist days. - We all go through that rebellious kick after all. And precisely when did this "ancient history" go [i]away[/i] I don't recall if you have ever actually been to this side of the Atlantic, but that one's been fresh in our minds since the beginning, you see we in our irrational little way understood the attack on our embassy to be a declaration of war. The attack, in conjunction with Iran's support of terrorist organizations are precisely the reasons we do not normalize relations with Iran.
I don't exactly see where you are getting this information from since I cannot find any statement confirming the Shah's immunity upon US soldiers. And I find that a bit strange since... WE NEVER COMMITTED TROOPS TO IRAN. In 1953 the CIA backed a coup to keep the Shah in power (at the request of the Shah). Seeing as I cannot find (and you can help me here) where this immunity from legal action was given to "US troops" anywhere online, and the US military never actually deployed anything to Iran I find that a dubious claim.
Besides your comparison is wrong. The Iranians ransomed the United States to prevent the US from legal action, whereas in this mysterious scenario you have presented the Shah confirmed immunity in return for helping maintain his regime.
I don't see how anybody can compare the noble struggle against fascism and genocide in World War II, to the Iranian Revolution but hey, it's your argument.
Yes.
How is this relevant?
Why does religion or political ideology matter when they are supporting them anyway? They are giving them the tools of destruction money, weapons, and training facilities (as the report notes) that's not precisely what I would call "restraint" wrt. support. Besides you said yourself Hezballah is very close to the Iranian regime and you even played with the idea they could be given nukes. I don't suppose you have any evidence that shows Iran's lack of interest in supporting the aforementioned groups in the past based on their ideology - or what is far more relevant - [i]their decision that the group is too dangerous to recieve weapons[/i]?
Yea, seeing as the US doesn't back the IRA (Is there something I am missing here with the IRA vein?)
Oh wait, I get it now, You are implying that the reports put that flag on Iran because individuals are supporting the terrorists and not the regime. However if you read the notes to the PGT 1999 and 2000 you would clearly see that state terrorism is defined as any state that actively provides legal protection to terrorists, as well as money, weapons and training. Private backers can provide money, weapons and to a far more limited extent training - but it cannot provide the sanction of law. But if you still do not trust the reports conclusions under this definition I suppose I can further demonstrate the Iranian Government's connection to terrorist groups.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-05-30-bombing-lawsuit_x.htm
http://www.michaeldanby.com/speeches/hezbolla.htm
(That one is really interesting, apparently Hezbolla created a game called "special force" being distributed by a company created by a directive from Ayatollah Khameneiin 1998 - the present Ayatollah of Iran)
Iran would be most willing to give them nukes - rather than them having to steal them... that's the whole argument here. Like I said, it achieves the objectives of attacking the "Great Satan" and gives them deniability.
(Deniability) http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=400&issue_id...
I never heard anything about that... he's been out of office for some time now, perhaps you are thinking of the Russian's announcement of a new more sophistocated nuclear weapon the US doesn't have in it's arsenal? I really couldn't say... see if you could find a link.
It seems like the Russians lose nukes on a near hourly basis.
Good Point, the CIA backed up bin Laden's attacks on the Soviet Union. However that was while we were under the impression that bin Laden's group was trying to liberate Afghanistan (which had just been invaded) from the Soviet's. We certainly didn't arm him to run around blowup up cafe's like Iran arms Hezbollah.There's a loaded question. The reality is that some countries (not "everyone else") back terrorists and don't get caught/punished for all kinds of reasons from the completely dubious to the totally practical. They certainly aren't allowed to back terrorism, and just because they have gotten away with it doesn't mean Iran should. Like I said before this is the law - not special rules for special people.
Israel didn't sign the nonproliferation treaty - hence they were never subject to it, just like India and Pakistan.
All the same we really should pressure them to reduce their arsenals.
This is different than Iran of course- which DID sign the treaty and is now breaking the law.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm
Cartoons aside you didn't really read my post carefully, the neocons explicitly reject Nation building - that is, invading a country for the sake of building democracy. Rather they believe that should we be pressed to invade a country, it is our duty to go beyond international law (which requires us only to leave a stable regime, and secure borders) and actually provide those people with a liberal constitutional democracy. That is faaar different than "going around bombing people" (which I might add is totally irrational and appears to be a baseless reactionary statement) and is the total opposite of "leaving them to pick up the pieces."
If you say so.
No, it is perfectly reasonable to say that constitutional liberal democracy has yielded greater liberty than any other form of government. And to keep this localised to the middle east, can you seriously argue that American or British style democracy with it's limits on power, structures for accountability, democratic institutions, et cetera are NOT a better alternative than the government presently in place in the middle east? A cohort of megalomaniac strongmen, dictatorial populists and religious fanatics? Is it racist to believe that it is not "just the way arabs are" that results in these tyranic regimes?
I very much disagree. I believe that there is nothing hotwired into arabs, or muslims that makes them seek out or want or accept these regimes.
So your point is that neocons are not, afterall, bloodsucking imperialists but rather informed political pundits with a complicated but sympathetic view of the world?
My how you have changed in the course of two posts?
But if you agree with Mr. Zakaria than you agree with this statement (from the same article)
[i]But however it looks from Tehran's perspective, a nuclear Iran would radically change the security atmosphere of the Middle East. It would also make Saudi Arabia and Egypt rethink their own security needs, leading to a potential nuclear spiral. All of which suggests that efforts to stop or at least delay the Iranian program are worth undertaking—intelligently.[/i]
In which case all you have been arguing about the united states not keeping "all options on the table" has been for naught.
Just like any good neocon Zakaria is shying away from stretching the American military, and advocates using diplomacy first - but nowhere is he saying we should give the Iranians a strong signal that should negotiations fail we wouldn't rely on force.
Quite the opposite, all he is saying is that we have nothing to lose from going first diplomatically because it would simply lead to where we are today.
Like I said before I am not arguing that we will or should take force off the table - to the contrary I am arguing that we should and are justified in keeping it ON the table, as Iran is breaking the law (and you have read the signatories yourself now) and pursuing an aggressive course that the United States understands to be belligerent.
And what do the Democrats have to do with this? - The US public and elite haven't even decided which party is better to lead the country
overall" - that's precisely why we have parties still. I don't see how you can make a sweeping generalization about which party is more reponsible.
But then, it wouldn't be your first sweeping generalization.
Was there? I have no idea and cannot find anything about it. And unless there were provisions in this "Iraq Freedom Act" you suggest exists that call for a military invasion I do not see how you can draw a line from this act to the invasion. Remember our original premise for invasion (since the Admin has changed it so many times) was that Iraq was developing an illegal nuclear program. Iraq denied this vehemently and as it turned out so far - looks like they were right. Iran DOES NOT deny they are creating an illegal nuclear program. According to the treaty they are now breaking that alone is enough to consider them hostile. Coupled with years of antiUS policy and the support of terrorism it is clear that the United States especially is threatened by this illegal development. Unlike Iraq we don't need to proove anything - the Iranians admitted their guilt, however like a cavalier rapist who brags in court about his crimes, Iran regales us with stories of their recent successes at the University of Esfahan and asks us what we can do to pursuade them off course.
I am not impressed by the "wisdom" of the supreme council.
That appears to be the case and is a serious consideration in how we will have to procede.
lol now there is an indictment. I won't speak to credibility but traditionally the US has had the [i]power[/i] to uphold international law, thus the responsibility has fallen to us. I don't care what you think of this country, I am not goign to play to this "special rules for special people" legal thought. Iran is pursuing an illegal course of action which threatens the US specifically, we would like to settle this diplomatically and have given the Iranians a generous offer to join the WTO which would effectively normalize economic relations with them not just between the US and Iran, but the world and Iran. We sincerely hope they accept our offer - but the United States will not be held ransom a second time, just because the Iran regime is once again willing to endanger innocent people in it's quest to eradicate the United States, the military option will - and should, remain on the table, it's our right to keep it there and we are very much justified.
Pages