Bush says Iran is next!

[FridgeMagnet]

You're aware, of course, of Iran's intervention in the internal affairs of israel.

And vice versa.

I don't think *anyone* should have nukes, certainly not Israel.

 

[Loki]

The gist I'm getting is that if it's a right-wing hawkish western president justifying action then that is OK to lob the precision missiles and nukes... Whereas if it is some Islamic republic then they should be nuked before they work out how to make nukes! Have I got it right JC2?

 

[sihhi]

Outside pressure may be the reason for the latest directive banning torture in prison, but such laws have been passed before and they never seem to make the slightest bit of difference.

Im not saying an Iraqi style invasion would be a good idea, just that i see very little evidence of progression.

There's very little evidence of progress because of the vulnerability of Iran after the Iraq invasion.

The hardliners' position has been strengthened and the reformers have been pushed more repressive and antagonistic against America Israel and Pakistan.
Offering support for Uzbeks in Afghanistan, focusing on a nuclear deterrent etc

 

[sihhi]

Israel has certainly used the threat of nukes; it underlies all of their international negotiations.

So has Geoff Hoon of Britain in fact. March 2002 "I am absolutely confident in the right conditions, we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons"

 

[ska invita]

The Iran nuclear situation as I understand it is this:

Iran claims that it wants nuclear power solely for electricity. This claim is less
spurious than it sounds, Iran does have electricity generation problems and France, Britain and Germany belived the intentions of Iran and made them a promise : stop refining uranium (which is dual purpose weapons grade or generator grade) and we will give you the latest nuclear technology (which is strictly for electricity generation).

Europe has broken its promise, so Iran says it will be defiant in its uranium enrichment and is accusing EU of breaking its promise for some poltical gain.


the broken promise:

The implications of the agreement are many and far-reaching. First, France, Germany, and Britain scored a diplomatic coup, by demonstrating that their "constructive dialogue" approach to Iran works, whereas the confrontationist course pursued by the neo-cons in Washington does not. The fact that Iran got guarantees from the Europeans that it would receive the technological assistance it requires, and has a right to according to the NPT, is a good omen for all those in the developing sector seeking access to advanced technologies. Last but not least, the reference to a joint commitment to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the region, is a blow to Israel, and signals support for the proposal that the Arab League has long held on the issue.

 

[cemertyone]

Go Georgie, go georgie....

When some mullah shows up on TV and tells us that it's time for the world to accept iran as part of the nuclear club, I say it's time for the Marines.

...
do that apply to your rabbi friends in Isreal to then.....?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The gist I'm getting is that if it's a right-wing hawkish western president justifying action then that is OK to lob the precision missiles and nukes... Whereas if it is some Islamic republic then they should be nuked before they work out how to make nukes! Have I got it right JC2?

The last time nukes were used was sixty years ago, admittedly by the US. Since then, the nuclear powers have been fairly responsible, and haven't destroyed the world.

Israel has been in a tight squeeze for a long time, but still hasn't used its nukes. When Saddam was trying to build nukes at Osirak, Israel didn't resort to nukes to end the problem.

There seems to be agreement around here that Saddam was an unstable despot. We mainly disagree about who was responsible for his rise to power, and what should have been done about it.

Would the world have been more or less unstable if Saddam had been allowed to complete the creation of nukes at Osirak?

As Fridge says, it's too bad that anyone has nukes. That being the case, why should any other countries be allowed to get them?

 

[Streathamite]

why should the US, Israel and the UK (f'rinstance) be allowed to have them and not others? what makes us so goddamn special?

 

[cemertyone]

why should the US, Israel and the UK (f'rinstance) be allowed to have them and not others? what makes us so goddamn special?

I`m afraid that Mr Crannock`s analysis of geo-political events has gonee form being right-wing ( sometimes interesting) to outright simplistic.....
Fox news has that effect over an extended period of time.......
Look what happenend to PBman..they have taken him away....

 

[danno_at_work]

There seems to be agreement around here that Saddam was an unstable despot. We mainly disagree about who was responsible for his rise to power, and what should have been done about it.
QUOTE]

substitute bush for saddam

 

[ska invita]

Condaleeza Rice hints at show down with Iran in near future.

On NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Rice reasserted that the world has fallen in line on Iran and said she expects next month to get a very strong statement from the IAEA ``that Iran will either be isolated, or it will submit to the will of the international community.''

........If Iran stands tough,as I expect they will, then a likely outcome will be sanctions and other pressures on Iran. This will give rise to anti US resentment and make a destabalised region even more so.

Then if Israel launched a strike on the nuclear facilities as is widely predicted... i dare think.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

why should the US, Israel and the UK (f'rinstance) be allowed to have them and not others? what makes us so goddamn special?

There's no issue of 'allowance'. There is no uber-father here to even things up, and what we're talking about aren't marbles. The concept of fairness doesn't apply.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

There's no issue of 'allowance'. There is no uber-father here to even things up, and what we're talking about aren't marbles. The concept of fairness doesn't apply.

This is a moment to seize. The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us. ............... Tony Blairs speech at the Labour Party Conference October 2, 2001.

WTF......... The new imperialists have spoken.

Have you really given any thought to these stupid statements made by Pm Blair? When pop star George Michael of Wham has dinner with the PM and makes the comment that he expects the PM to be the most intelligent person in the room and we are disappointed to discover that he is not, and then Blair makes pulipt statements about kaleidoscopes and rearranging them in vague reference to a dysfunctional NWo, I start twirling my globe and wondering where I can emigrate.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

WTF......... The new imperialists have spoken.

I read an editorial saying that the current Gulf troubles are indeed about oil - from Bin Laden's perspective.

It said that his ultimate goal is the control of Saudi oil reserves, and the formation of a new islamic caliphate in the middle east.

I, for one would not be happy to see such a caliphate in control of nuclear weapons, no matter how 'unfair' that might seem.

 

[ska invita]

Diplomacy sidelined as US targets Iran

The US charge sheet against Iran is lengthening almost by the day, presaging destabilising confrontations this autumn and maybe a pre-election October surprise.

........................................

Make no mistake that a head-on confrontation with Iran is a slow motion car crash. The Bush administration is deluded with power to belive for a moment that it isn't completely overstretched by the current situation in Iraq.

The arrogance of opening up the "axis-of-evil" crusade yet further before it has secured its first illegal war is pure delusion. There are many arguments against the war in Iraq, but for me the two most pertinent to right-wing ideology are that:

Firstly, it destabilises an area that is held together with the most delicate of fabric, and is perpetualy on the verge of spontaneous combustion. To fight "fire with fire" as neo-cons perhaps perceive it, is to let the Arabic states burn to the ground, and move out of anyones control: even beyond the hyperpower of the US.
and
Secondly, it will let any possible existing WMD or just good-ole W's disipate into dangerous hands, just as the collapse of Russia saw a boom of Russian weaponry on the international market.

Baring these two factors in mind, I find the timing of the threatening of Iran reckless and showing complete disregard for any real security and safety in the region. The notion that the US is embarked on some sort of missions that will re-order the arabic lands just doesn't add up: to threaten Iran at this time is to wreck the whole region and provoke a firestorm. My only conclusion is that they mean to deliberately destabilise the entire region with no regard for the havoc that will ensue.

 

[ska invita]

Iran ready for the stand off.

`This is our national interest and prestige. This is our strategy. But if they want to deny us of our basic right (to develop a peaceful nuclear program), we and our nation have to be prepared to pay the price.''

Safavi was quoted by IRNA as saying, ``If Israel is mad enough to attack Iran's national interests, we will come down on them like a hammer and will crush their bones.''

Anyone see the documentary about history of US vs Iran? Its a grudge match that goes back thirty years, and the US still feels dissed as if the revolution was yesterday...

 

[invisibleplanet]

i trust the iranians to live by their word and not use nukes. They have every right and need to develop a peaceful power station. America has nuclear power! I don't believe they have a right to attack Iran for this, else then all countries with nukes should also be under threat of attack, which would mean....well, you know as well as I do that the logic isn't going to hold in a court of law.
So, is it going to take the Chinese Army to stop the US/IL advance on 'Eretz Yisrael' Oil territory?

One of my main concerns is adequate preparation for the oncoming wave of earthquakes which will come as oil extraction increases. There is already a large displaced refugee population, but Turkey and Armenia do seem to feel the Quakes alot of late.
Let's look for one moment at the U'wa tribe of Venzuela (http://www.ran.org/ran_campaigns/beyond_oil/oxy/uwa_facts.html) believe that the oil is like the blood of the earth, and it's removal will cause 'veins' to collapse and earthquakes in the regions where the oil was removed.
I don't know whether to believe this myself, but i'm more inclined to believe a tribe who has lived in harmony with nature for thousands upon thousands of years, than a group of multinationals with vested interests.

It's also a hopeful tale of indigenous peoples fightiing the American Multinationals.

shalom/salaam
IP

 

[ska invita]

Today at the Olympic Games opening ceremony we hear the news that the Iranian Judo competitor has stood down from his first match...against an Israeli. Iran doesnt recognise Israel as a state.

This depressing little story just shows the amount of bad-blood that is held in Iran (or by the Iranian religious government) for the Israel/US axis. The more I learn about Iranian-US history of the last thirty years the clearer to me it becomes that a clash between the two is inevitable. Its just a question of how many die as a result.

 

[invisibleplanet]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_sports/view/100805/1/.html
"It is not the first time Iranian judokas have declined to fight against Israeli opponents.

At the 2001 world championships, Mahed Malekmohammdi refused to face Yoel Razvozov while Asian champion Masoud Haji Akhoundzade also pulled out of a planned clash with Israeli lightweight Zvi Shafran.

Boycotts of fixtures involving Israeli are nothing new.

At the 2003 world table tennis championships in Paris, Israel lodged an official protest after Yemeni and Saudi players refused to play against one of its team members.

Yemeni player Hani Al-Hammadi had been due to face Israel's Gay Elensky but turned and left when he saw his opponent was Israeli.

One day later, Elensky was due to meet Saudi player Nabeel Al-Magahwi - but the Saudi player refused to come to the table.

Al-Magahwi was banned for a year for his action and became a national hero in his homeland.

"What I did in Paris was the right thing and I feel proud of it," he said.

"It is a natural for an Arab or a Muslim not to want to face an Israeli, because of our protest against the Israeli aggression in Palestane.

"It was very touching when an old lady from Palestine, who had lived in Paris for most of her life, called me and told me that she and her people feel proud of the stance I took."

Anti-Israel sentiment, however, worked against Libya's plans to stage the 2010 World Cup when, as part of their bid submission to FIFA, the north African nation said that every nation was welcome except Israel."

 

[Psychonaut]

The US charge sheet against Iran is lengthening almost by the day, presaging destabilising confrontations this autumn and maybe a pre-election October surprise.

As an excuse to cancel the US election, i suppose it might just happen.

 

[ska invita]

The latest on Iran-watching:

Iranians agree to nuclear concessions , whilst the diplomatic Donald Rumsfeld blames violence in Iraq on Iran ...

...which is as clever way of passing the buck as I have ever seen.

 

[Streathamite]

There's no issue of 'allowance'. There is no uber-father here to even things up, and what we're talking about aren't marbles. The concept of fairness doesn't apply.

OK-why should a christian-semi-fundamentalist (ie present govt) US which has consistently butchered, bombed, invaded and terror-sponsored its' way round the world for the past 50 solid years, killing millions of civilians in the process, be more trusted with nukes, than a theocratic Iran which hasn't, and which only fought when Saddam attacked it?
why is it right for the US to have them, and wrong for Iran?
why is it safe for the US to have them, and unsafe if Iran does?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

OK-why should a christian-semi-fundamentalist (ie present govt) US which has consistently butchered, bombed, invaded and terror-sponsored its' way round the world for the past 50 solid years, killing millions of civilians in the process, be more trusted with nukes, than a theocratic Iran which hasn't, and which only fought when Saddam attacked it?
why is it right for the US to have them, and wrong for Iran?
why is it safe for the US to have them, and unsafe if Iran does?

Aren't you a little confused? What was semi fundamentalist about the govt of Clinton, or of Carter, or of Kennedy, all of whom have been presidents during the fifty years that you are talking about.

Bush has been president for a little over three years.

Why should the US be trusted? Because its rulers are at least partly under the oversight of the electorate, and are subject to various checks and balances, including the Constitution, and the power of Congress and the Senate.

The rulers of Iran are apparently swayed by the teachings of Mohammed, and the Koran, and little else.

Whom would you rather see with nuclear weapons, if anyone must have them?

And red, if you answer Iran, then you're talking through your hat, and you know it. It means that you are arguing for argument's sake.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Aren't you a little confused? What was semi fundamentalist about the govt of Clinton, or of Carter, or of Kennedy, all of whom have been presidents during the fifty years that you are talking about.

Bush has been president for a little over three years.

Why should the US be trusted? Because its rulers are at least partly under the oversight of the electorate, and are subject to various checks and balances, including the Constitution, and the power of Congress and the Senate.

although i don't agree with your point of view, you appear to share this common thought with many of the so called 'US electorate' .


Just exactly what percentage of the US population bothers to vote?

The rulers of Iran are apparently swayed by the teachings of Mohammed, and the Koran, and little else.

Here is where your point of view belies your ignorance of Iranian culture and their state religion. First you imply here that their religion's ethics are somehow faulty (which is not the case - we cannot showcase dissidents and extremists as being representative of the Islamic religion. This is quite simply misrepresentation.

Then you imply that the Iranian State religion can be used as some indicator of Iranian 'lack of 'morals and religious ethic', and at this point, I'd like to point out that the G_d of the Iranians is the same G_d that US Southern Baptists worship.

Whom would you rather see with nuclear weapons, if anyone must have them?

Perhaps we should allow America to continue having nukes - after all the equivalent of 250,000 times the radioactivity of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs is spread throughout certain sectors of Badhdad City, Basra, and the surrounding urban farmland region in the South Iraq!

Perhaps we should allow America to continue to 'regime change' and split countries in two with north-south divide for the 21st Century, as it split and defoliated and posioned much of East Asia in the 20th?

I'd trust the Iranians more than the US as they have never used nukes against any populace or country.

You will find the Iranian Govt and state religion abhorring the use or threat of NUKES to solve political discordance between countries, and you will find them needing Nuclear Power to generate electricity as many countries do.

You will find Iran being placed under constant threat from Israel, who are pressuring along with USA Bush-Cheney administration to make ultimatums to Iran when the western world is quite simply are under NO THREAT from Iran at all.

Iran has made NO THREAT to Israel that does not include being struck first by Israel in an attempt to shut down their nuclear facilities.

And red, if you answer Iran, then you're talking through your hat, and you know it. It means that you are arguing for argument's sake.

Rubbish.

You try to steer the result by making a foregone conclusion based on your own dodgy reasoning that it's ok for Israel (a major agressor who surprisingly has not been accused by the US of genocide against the Palestinian People as has been declared in the Sudan, even though the conditions are the same as for Palestine, if not worse) to develop nukes and threaten other middle eastern countries with them but not for other middle eastern countries to respond to the escalated threat with unveiling some new shiny weaponry.

These are western escalation tactics, and Ariel Sharon, a WAR CRIMINAL responsible for genocidal attacks against 'the Palestinian Cancer' is calling the political shots and setting the timescales and this too, is very very wrong.

Iran has a 'no-use' history with Nukes, compared to either the USA or ISRAEL, and it is ISRAEL on whose behalf this #beef# with Iran is being escalated.

I'm guessing it serves the BUSHARON administration to instill Iran as new Islamic Devil Scapegoat now that Saddham's Baathist Iraq has fallen.

BUSH and SHARON are already proven to be ill-equipped to aid events towards PEACE in the middle east.

It is worth considering that both US and ISRAELI foreign policies are directly responsible for causing the instability in that region.

Iran is NO THREAT.

It's time to let the Inspectors in to Israel's nuclear facilities, and see what weapons they are stockpiling to threaten other countries in that region.

 

[nino_savatte]

For someone who calls himself a Canadian, Canuck appears to be more supportive of the American right than most right wing Canadians. Indeed he is the only Canadian I have ever encountered who is nearly 100% supportive of the US. This leads me to believe that he is either a displaced American or a Canadian with an acute inferiority complex about his country and nationality.

Before you go and accuse me of ignorance, I would warn you, Canuck, that I have Canadian relatives, who are - unfortunately - on the right. I have never once heard them come out with any of the bollocks you have.

I don't think he's Canadian at all.

He may be a corporate lawyer on the other hand.

Sometimes I think he is either two people or a composite of right wing thoughts.

 

[invisibleplanet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10276-2004Sep9.html

While it is convenient to dismiss Iran's quest for nuclear arms as a product of radical Islamic doctrine, this dangerously misconstrues the genesis of the Iranian program. Rather than religious dogma, Iran's nuclear ambitions are born of the compulsion -- crystallized by the bitter experience of its eight-year war with Iraq -- to craft an impregnable deterrent capability. In the post-Sept. 11 period, the massive projection of American power on Iran's periphery and the Bush administration's shrill "axis of evil" rhetoric have further enhanced the value of nuclear weapons in the clerical cosmology

completely missing the point. this is not about arms: see below

 

[invisibleplanet]

source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/9/2004&Cat=14&Num=001

EU must resist U.S. pressure


At a meeting on September 6 with Hassan Rowhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said that the European Union will adopt a favorable position in regard to Iran’s nuclear dossier at the next International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors session.

In another meeting, Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende and Rowhani stressed the need to expand Iran-EU cooperation in various spheres.

Iran’s civilian nuclear program was the most important issue Iranian and Dutch officials discussed during their meetings.

Rowhani said that Tehran expects the EU to officially recognize Iran’s legitimate right to make use of nuclear technology meant for peaceful purposes.

However, EU states have differing opinions on Iran’s nuclear program, and the pressure that the United States and Zionist circles are exerting on EU countries has had a noticeable effect in this regard.

The U.S. pressure is meant to force Europe to adopt an unfavorable position toward Iran at the next session of the IAEA Board.

Yet, the European Union will most likely face various challenges in the international arena if it bows to the U.S. demands. EU states should think twice about following the unilateral and confrontational policies of the United States, especially in regard to the politicization of international institutions like the IAEA, since that would not be in the best interests of the European Union and would only serve to demonstrate its subservience to the U.S.

Clearly, if they fail to adopt an independent stance, European governments’ reputations will be sullied in the court of world public opinion, which is staunchly opposed to Washington’s unilateralism.

Rather, the EU should adopt a realistic position toward the Islamic Republic Iran, in view of IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei’s recent report on Iran’s nuclear activities.

The remarks of officials from the Netherlands, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU, show that Dutch officials believe the EU should resist the U.S. pressure. But this will not be an easy task.

Still seething over the fact that certain European countries, most notably France and Germany, opposed them when they were beating the drums of war in 2003, U.S. officials are now trying to hinder constructive cooperation between Iran and the EU, particularly in the field of nuclear technology, by creating new disputes between European states.

However, the Europeans surely remember U.S. officials’ remarks about “old Europe” and “new Europe” during the run-up to the Iraq war and are still wary about similar efforts to divide the EU.

At this sensitive juncture, Iran and the EU should make efforts to clear up misunderstandings and resolve disagreements through continued dialogue, since strengthening mutual ties is in the best interests of both sides.

two sides of the same story. who between these two show a fundamentalist approach? why! the unilateral strategy of the Bush-administration!

 

[tim]

How the hell did Bush manage to get US bases into Azerbaijan and Armenia? I'm amazed, did they actually agree to "temporary" (i.e. permanent) american military presence before the invasion of Afghanistan?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

 

[nino_savatte]

Some of America's previous profiteers

Albert Fall
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfallA.JPG

Warren G Harding
http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/fi/0000013c.jpg

I always seem to have trouble posting even small images.

 

[invisibleplanet]

read this from Jane's (16 July 2004)

Israel's plans for Iran strikes

Amid growing concern over Iran's alleged duplicity in declaring all its nuclear activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Israel - the country that regards itself as most at risk from a nuclear-capable Iran - may be poised to revive contingency plans to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.

It is hardly surprising that Israel's national security establishment has concluded that Israel would be at risk from a nuclear-capable Iran. However, if a pre-emptive attack is to be launched Israel may have to go it alone. Any joint US-Israeli precision-guided missile strike against Iran's nuclear facilities - Bushehr, Natanz or Arak - is unlikely to prove an attractive option for the US administration while it remains mired in Iraq - which shares a 1,458km-long border with Iran.

If the USA was to participate in such an operation, Washington's allies would undoubtedly denounce what would be seen as yet another example of dangerous US unilateralism. However, the real concern is that a chain reaction of unintended consequences would further destabilise the world's most volatile region. The USA's involvement in a pre-emptive strike against Iran would also undermine the Bush administration's last vestiges of credibility as an 'honest broker' in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. An Israeli strike could effectively end hopes of reaching any kind of peace deal. The US administration also faces the dilemma of insisting that Iran has no right to develop nuclear weapons while Israel is believed to have several hundred in its arsenal.

The controversial role of intelligence is likely to prove significant. The US Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) would have to produce incontrovertible evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons which, given the recent damning report by the US Senate on the CIA's collection and analysis of intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is unlikely. This crisis of credibility would make a US decision to launch a pre-emptive strike difficult, if not impossible, to sell to US legislators or to the wider world.

source: http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid040716_1_n.shtml