Army.ca Forums

The Newsroom => International Defence and Security => Topic started by: JasonH on January 18, 2005, 14:16:31

Title: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: JasonH on January 18, 2005, 14:16:31
Iran: We can repel U.S. attack

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Posted: 0952 GMT (1752 HKT)

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, its defense minister said in remarks published on Tuesday, one day after U.S. President George W. Bush said he would not rule out military action against Iran.

Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said the Islamic Republic, which has seen U.S. forces topple regimes in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq in the last three years, did not fear attack.

"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying.

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.

Bush said on Monday that Washington would not rule out military action against Iran if it was not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

His comments followed an article in the New Yorker magazine on Sunday which said U.S. commando units were conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to identify hidden nuclear and chemical sites for possible future strikes. Full story

Iran denies its nuclear facilities are to be used to make nuclear weapons and Pentagon officials have rubbished the New Yorker report. Full story

Iranian officials have given no public reaction to the New Yorker article which suggested Pentagon officials were eager to tackle Iran in the second term of the Bush administration.

Mehr news agency, which analysts say has close ties to the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an editorial entitled "Futile espionage" ridiculed U.S. attempts to destabilize Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"The United States is well aware that Iran has strongly withstood U.S. pressure for over 25 years ... Today, the Islamic Republic has acquired massive military might, the dimensions of which still remain unknown, and is prepared to attack any intruder with a fearsome rain of fire and death," it said.

"The U.S. and Israel know that they can never militarily challenge Iran, since attacking the Islamic Republic would be biting off more than they could chew and would only choke them if they attempted it," it added.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/18/iran.attack.reut/index.html

Anyone with half a brain can tell they are talken about Missiles with possible Nuclear warheads.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: jmackenzie_15 on January 18, 2005, 14:44:39
If Iran has nuclear weapons, I doubt that they are accurate or have enough range to hit any targets in the united states.However, I could definately see a nuclear attack on israel in retaliation for US attacks.

I guess i should have more accurately named my War of the Future thread to, War of a few months from now.  :-\
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: JasonH on January 18, 2005, 14:54:06
Reminds me of Bahgdad Bob

"There are NO US soldiers in Baghdad!"

Exactly what I was thinken when I first herd it lol.

What ever happend to that guy?  He just kinda disappeared.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 18, 2005, 14:58:59
I think he got hired by Al-Jazeera?   Or some other arab news agency?   Not too sure.

UPDATE:

ah here we go...

January 12 - Furloughed Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (M.S.S.) has a brand new "gig" (that's entertainment industry lingo)- TV talking head for Abu Dhabi TV! His latest commentary on the capture of Saddam included this, uh, curious statement: "The expected trial needs evidence to be submitted. Everybody talks about war crimes and the like. But the court considers facts and evidence only." Because we all know how much M.S.S. believes in the sanctity of facts and evidence. We forget, are their troops in Baghdad yet?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: chaos75 on January 18, 2005, 15:50:59
I guess it is time for Condi to step up to the plate and present some new 'solid evidence' that will give the US an excuse to complete its hat trick in the middle east/asia.  Maybe it will be some more aluminum tubes, or some more mobile chemical warfare units, or that Iran might make nukes, sometime, maybe, if let them, cause we only give them to our buddies.  Wonder who will be in the coalition this time, Israel of course, and ten or so countries that no one has ever heard of, oh and the UK, cant forget bush's lapdog Tony Blair. 

Seriously though, with their forces stretched so thin, and little international support, with US forces creeping ever so closer to Russia, China and India, I dont think they can pull it off, some airstrikes maybe (preemptive precision strikes).  Any thoughts? :cdn:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CBH99 on January 18, 2005, 16:22:13
The US can't possibly hope to engage in a war with Iran, for several reasons.

1.  Militarily - the US is stretched so thin right now with their occupation of Iraq, and the need to keep forces free incase such deployments to Korea or Sudan take place.  You think the Muslim world in enraged now, with the US occupation of Iraq and rather arrogant approach to foreign policy?  Wait until they have engaged in a war with Iran - then lets see how passionate the Muslim community is about defending their world.

2.  International Support - How many countries do you think are going to support the United States after the mess they created in Iraq?  Another "Coalition of the Willing", which minus Australia, Britain and Spain, consisted largely of a pool of countries some of us hadn't even heard of before.  The point here - not a lot of countries are going to support a war with Iran.  The mess in Iraq is right next door, and everybody knows the US is going to be in Iraq for quite some time before things get to the point where they can withdraw.  Not a lot of countries are going to want to get involved in yet another Middle East guerilla campaign in Iran.

Do you guys think the UK will support the US if this "crisis" ever actually comes to fruitation?  I only ask this, because in the past month or so, Britain and the rest of the EU has distanced itself from the US militarily.  The EU has lifted its weapons ban on China (Or is about to?) - and Britain supports the move in the interests of growing closer to Beijing politically.  Also, its no secret that after the US invaded Iraq preemptively and large unilaterally, many of its allies in the EU were shunned for not supporting them.  So - any thoughts on whether the EU would support the US on yet another bold crusade into Iran?  And, any thoughts on the feasibility of some sort of campaign against Iran, even if it is just special forces/airstrikes?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 18, 2005, 17:08:33
International support isn't an issue.  The US doesn't need the EU.  The UK and Australia would continue to support them if the case for an invasion of Iran was strong enough.

The possibility of an invasion is a non-issue anyway.  It can't happen while Bush is in office beause the military is occupied in Iraq and even assuming they can pull out within a year, they'll need a period to rest and reorganize before they can launch another major campaign.  That means that if the president who follows Bush has the balls to do it, the earliest invasion of Iran would still be probably at least 3-4 years in the future.  More than likely though, a war won't be neccesary.  With Iraq there was no longer any room for a diplomatic solution, with Iran there's still a lot of other options to try before war is considered.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Love793 on January 18, 2005, 17:22:56
I think he got hired by Al-Jazeera?   Or some other arab news agency?   Not too sure.

UPDATE:

ah here we go...

January 12 - Furloughed Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (M.S.S.) has a brand new "gig" (that's entertainment industry lingo)- TV talking head for Abu Dhabi TV! His latest commentary on the capture of Saddam included this, uh, curious statement: "The expected trial needs evidence to be submitted. Everybody talks about war crimes and the like. But the court considers facts and evidence only." Because we all know how much M.S.S. believes in the sanctity of facts and evidence. We forget, are their troops in Baghdad yet?

One of the many rumours around Ft Hood regarding him was, He tried to turn himself in (key word Tried).  For some reason or another US/Brit Int told him to pound salt.  How embarasing can that be?  The guy doesn't even make it on the deck of cards and not even Int doesn't wants to talk to him.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CBH99 on January 18, 2005, 21:10:35
Thats a good point 48th - even after US forces get pulled from Iraq, it'll take them a while to reorganize themselves and rest up before any other major campaign.  However at the same time,  precision air strikes and special forces is always an option - a very effective option at that.

I would hate for a campaign to be launched against Iran, to be perfectly honest.  I travelled to Tehran a little more than 2yrs ago with my wife, and its an absolutely beautiful city.  Much different than what we see on TV here, and the entire political atmosphere in Iran is much more laid back and comfortable, despite the media reports we get here in the west.  Although women still had to cover their faces, the atmosphere when travelling throughout the country (I stayed mostly in Tehran) was quite comfortable, and the people there were very, very friendly.

48th Highlander - you brought up an interesting point, perhaps without even meaning to.  With the current state of geopolitical affairs - anybody else see the world just caving in on itself anytime soon?  j/k -- but in all seriousness...we have to do something about Sudan (Getting them to sign a piece of paper doesn't count) - we have to monitor the North Korea/South Korea situation,  we have to monitor the China/Taiwan situation, Iraq is a mess (The US won't be able to pull out within a year, despite optimistic outlooks), plus any other sudden shitstorm that could whip up;  anybody else got any feedback on the idea that the world is becoming a more dangerous place, and that the geopolitical structure of today will be MUCH, MUCH different than it will be in even 10yrs from now?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 18, 2005, 21:41:27
It's a safe bet that the world will be massively different in 10 or 20 years.   Declining oil reserves alone will produce massive changes, with the "alternate fuel" market booming.   Whichever nation(s) most effectively capitalizes on that will see massive growth in a very short period.   Such a shift in the balance of power around the world will almost deffinitely lead to some sort of conflict.   Also, according to the CIA, the EU will start falling apart in about 15 years:

http://story.europesun.com/p.x/ct/9/cid/ab2402315313d795/id/17ae829b56c41987/

I'm not sure how accurate such a prediction is, but whatever the case, the prosperity or lack thereof of the EU is going to be pretty important in the next 10-15 years.

And ofcourse, the middle east is going to change a lot as well.   Hopefuly the elections in Iraq will go well, and the country will serve as an example and a beacon to the rest of the pople in the middle east.   Or it could very well fall apart, starting another series of bloody conflicts which will doubtless drag numerous first world nations in with them.


It's deffinitely going to be an interesting decade.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Otto Fest on January 18, 2005, 23:34:08
The Atlantic Magazine recently did an article about a think tanks simulation of Iran/US conflict.  They came up with the same conclusions - Iran may have it's nuclear program damaged, but it will not be defeated.  With six times the population of Iraq and probably a more motivated military it could become the American's Stalingrad.  So the US is left with using honey (a la North Korea), vinegar (Iraq sanctions) or taking an iffy leap into the unknown.

On another and longer term note the Economist magazine believes that the U$ will lose its status as reserve currency.  It now borrows and transacts in its own currency and has issued trillions of dollars of cheques that have never been cashed.  This change will be the result of excessive government spending.  By comparison, our government have been tightwads and our CPP the gold standard.  If you think going from a 60 cent to 80 cent dollar was something, wait'l our dollar goes to $1.10 US in 18 months.  A positive balance of trade is vital to maintaining dominance, and once lost technical and military superiority has historically quickly been lost.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on January 19, 2005, 03:55:20
1.   Militarily - the US is stretched so thin right now with their occupation of Iraq, and the need to keep forces free incase such deployments to Korea or Sudan take place.   You think the Muslim world in enraged now, with the US occupation of Iraq and rather arrogant approach to foreign policy?   Wait until they have engaged in a war with Iran - then lets see how passionate the Muslim community is about defending their world.

I agree the US is stretched too thin to invade Iran. HOWEVER, I think the likeliness of the US acting in Sudan is about as high as Michael Moore getting hit by lightning while kissing the Olsen twins during the production a pro-Bush documentary. The US act in their (self-percieved) political interest and, as was shown with the UN not acting and barely speaking against the situation in Sudan, it isn't in the US' interest to send in troops, as nobody (apparently) cares about Sudan.

Even if the US were to act, if they didn't get the UN approval (which they won't, as the UN doesn't give a fly about Sudan either) they'd still get attacked by every crackpot leftist conspiracy theorist Moore-wannabe, and someone would invent something about Sudanese ressources making the US act. Dubya (and his friends) know this, so they're not about to act "unilaterally" in an "illegal" "invasion" of a sovereign, "peace-loving" nation, no matter how much good it would do to stability in the region, human rights, and, of course, preventing the genocide from getting finished.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CBH99 on January 19, 2005, 06:07:37
Its a sad state of affairs really, when political interest takes priority over doing whats morally and ethically right.  Who cares if Rwanda repeats itself, and another 800,000 people are killed, raped and slaughtered in Africa?  We didn't want anybody to think we went in for the wrong reasons, so I suppose its justified.  Lets send confusing signals to the rest of the world about our committment to the China/Taiwan conflict - after all, its not like we're supposed to lead by example, are we?  My point is - we have a moral obligation to act to prevent mass atrocities from occurring; we shouldn't let political convenience get in the way of doing whats right.

"With great power, comes great responsibility" - Uncle Ben :P
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on January 20, 2005, 05:09:25
I agree the US is stretched too thin to invade Iran.

I was discussing this with a strategic studies prof the other day and he mentioned that if the US staffed the Iraq occupation with National Guard and reserve elements, they could field somewhere in the area of 8 reg force divisions against Iran. The "quality" of occupation in Iraq would suffer but 8-9 divisions would be enough (he claimed) to take Iran. Occupying it is another story, of course.

That's to say nothing of the fact that Bush has no legitimate excuse to invade Iran - not even the flimsy, half-assed attempt at an excuse he made up for Iraq.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 20, 2005, 08:52:17
Quote,
That's to say nothing of the fact that Bush has no legitimate excuse to invade Iran - not even the flimsy, half-assed attempt at an excuse he made up for Iraq.

You just have to drop this line in even though you have been debated on it in other threads?
Let it go and move on, lad......its gotten old and I won't let this thread get sidetracked  off the original discussion.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on January 20, 2005, 14:27:45
Quote,
That's to say nothing of the fact that Bush has no legitimate excuse to invade Iran - not even the flimsy, half-assed attempt at an excuse he made up for Iraq.

You just have to drop this line in even though you have been debated on it in other threads?
Let it go and move on, lad......its gotten old and I won't let this thread get sidetracked   off the original discussion.

You're probably right, though I honestly wasn't trying to sidetrack - it was more of an attempt to illustrate the practical political difficulties of such an invasion. That being said, I likely didn't go about it in the best way possible. :D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 20, 2005, 18:18:22
Exactly what I was thinken when I first herd it lol.

What ever happend to that guy?   He just kinda disappeared.

Is that they guy saying it at the press confrence as an M1 was crossing a bridge behind him?

He prob got a job for the PM and his spin team

The subs are working fine
The new MGS is an excellent piece of kit
The new helicopters are exactly what we need
and on and on and on

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 20, 2005, 18:29:38
On the real issue though

.  Militarily - the US is stretched so thin right now with their occupation of Iraq, and the need to keep forces free incase such deployments to Korea or Sudan take place.  You think the Muslim world in enraged now, with the US occupation of Iraq and rather arrogant approach to foreign policy?  Wait until they have engaged in a war with Iran - then lets see how passionate the Muslim community is about defending their world.

Do you not think they would use the government (puppet) of Iraq to send in troops to the cause. 

Isreal would never make the list as it would incite to many negative forces to the side of Iran.

Russia and France would block any UN option. 

India and Pakastian may be willing to move if they get room to grow. 

China won't care to much as long as they leave NK alone for now.

Yes the forces of the US are streched fairly thin but if they were able to turn Iraq over to UN forces in 6-7 months you can bet GW gets his second war before his term is done.

If Iran keeps ratiling thier saber you might hear not see some B-2's or F117's in around some "key" areas of Iran.

My two cents.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on January 20, 2005, 20:53:33
I was discussing this with a strategic studies prof the other day and he mentioned that if the US staffed the Iraq occupation with National Guard and reserve elements, they could field somewhere in the area of 8 reg force divisions against Iran. The "quality" of occupation in Iraq would suffer but 8-9 divisions would be enough (he claimed) to take Iran. Occupying it is another story, of course.

The biggest problem I'd see with gathering up that much "new blood" for Iraq is the home reaction. If you think people are hating the war in Iraq now, try and send in a crapload of "part-time soldiers" who mostly just want to look cool in uniform and get school money.

More cowardness (desertion) and protests are forecasted...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bert on January 20, 2005, 21:28:11
The politics of the region are complex.  Heres a Stratfor special and it sheds
an interesting perspective on the current US, Iran, and Iraq dynamics.

After the Election
www.stratfor.com

By George Friedman

It is now a week from the Iraqi elections. Apart from knowing the precise levels of violence the insurgency will be able to reach before the election, most of the rest of it is clear. The election will be held. In much of the Sunni region, the turnout will be extremely low -- low enough that the election might be suspended there. The Shia will win. The United States could choose to suspend the elections -- and there should be no mistake about who is making the decisions on this -- but the point for that has passed. If the elections were going to be postponed, one would think that Washington would have made that decision weeks ago.

The next decision that will have to be made is whether to certify the election. There is not much choice there either. Washington knows the vote in the Sunni region will be disrupted. To hold the election and then fail to certify it because of the guerrilla war makes no sense. The guerrilla war has been there for a long time now. If you are going to hold the election anyway, not certifying it would be an exercise in futility.

If the vote is certified, a government will be formed. The Shia will dominate that government. They would have dominated any government for simple demographic reasons. With the Sunni vote suppressed, they will dominate the government overwhelmingly. The United States has proposed in the past some artificial formula to guarantee Sunni representation in the government, a substitute for an election, but the Shia have rejected it. Moreover, if the United States allowed the Sunnis to take a full seat at the table in spite of their inability to suppress the insurrection, there would be zero incentive in the future for Sunni elders to take a chance. Undoubtedly, some sort of contrived Sunni presence will be inserted, but this will be a Shiite government.

Thus, at some point in February, a Shiite prime minister, governing through a predominantly Shiite Cabinet, will become the government of Iraq. The Shia have been waiting for this moment for decades. Although divided, the formation of a government that reflects -- or over-reflects -- Shiite power will be a moment of enormous triumph. The evolution of this government is unclear. It could evolve into an Iranian-style theocracy, although the Iraqi religious leaders seem to take a different view of this than the Iranians. It might be ruled by Islamic principles without the overtly theocratic elements. It could even be, for a time, formally pluralist or secular. Whatever it will be, it will be Shia, and it will be under the heavy control of the religious leaders.

The first problem the new government will face will be the Sunni uprising. Sunni guerrillas recently killed two of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's aides. They have been conducting a fairly one-sided assault against the Shia for months. The reasoning behind the attacks appears to have been to intimidate the Shiite leadership prior to its taking power. What they have done instead is infuriate the Shia. The Shia have suffered from suppression by the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein -- Sunni by birth if not by religious principle. They have been the dispossessed. It is now their time.

The Shia understand they cannot simply remain in a defensive mode. They have been passive in the run-up to the election, but after the election their credibility as the government of Iraq will depend on how they deal with the guerrillas. They must either suppress the guerrillas or negotiate a deal with them. Since a deal is hard to imagine at this time, they will have to act to suppress them. If they don't, the government will either be destroyed by the insurgents or Iraq will split into two or three countries, an evolution unacceptable to the Shia or to Iran.

Therefore, the Shia will fight. The Shiite leadership has made it clear it wants the United States to remain in Iraq for the time being. This does not mean it wants a long-term American presence. It means it wants U.S. forces to carry the main battle against the Sunnis on its behalf. In the same way that al-Sistani wanted the Americans to deal with Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr during the An Najaf affair, he wants the Americans to carry the main burden now.

The United States is prepared to carry a burden, but it is not prepared to single-handedly deal with the Sunnis any longer. The Shia have substantial armed militias. It is these forces -- not the failed Iraqi army the United States has tried to invent -- that will be the mainstay of the regime. The Shia don't want this force ground up because it is the guarantor of their security. The United States is not going to protect the regime without these forces engaged.

At this point, something interesting happens. The Shia have a greater vested interest in the viability of this government than even the Americans. The Americans can leave. The Shia aren't going anywhere. For the first time, the United States has a potential ally with capabilities and motivation. Most important, it is an ally that is not blind on the ground. Its intelligence capability is not perfect among the Sunnis, but it is better than what the Americans have.

It is an opportunity for the Americans. It is hard to get excited any longer about opportunities. We have seen so many open up and either prove chimerical or be fumbled by the United States that we temper our enthusiasm in all things. Nevertheless, the Shia will be the government for the first time; they have been waiting for this; they owe the Sunnis a beating and they might, with the United States, have the means to deliver it.

In all of this, the role of Iran is the most complex. The Iranians supported the Shiite community throughout the post-Desert Storm period. During the first phase of the American occupation, the two Shiite communities were close. Since the events of April 2004, the long-term wariness between the two communities has returned. Iran might not be as enthusiastic as it once was to see a Shiite government in Iraq. Alternatively, Iran could use its ongoing influence to manipulate and control that government.

It is no accident, in our view, that Washington is beating the war drums against Iran in the weeks before the Iraqi election. It is not only about nuclear weapons or not even about them. It is warning the Iranians not to intrude into Iraqi affairs. The Iranians might listen, but it's unlikely. Iraq is a fundamental national interest of Iran, and the Iranians will be playing.

Thus, the election brings a new government with new interests and new crises. If the government is seated, and we can't see why it wouldn't be, the next thing to watch is what steps it takes with its militias against the insurgents. Certainly, the guerrillas will be hitting them hard, so passivity is not an option. The Iranians will be manipulating the government and the Americans will be squeezing it. But it is at this point that something might finally, if temporarily, break in favor of the United States. Certainly that is the bet Washington is making.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on January 21, 2005, 12:20:37
The biggest problem I'd see with gathering up that much "new blood" for Iraq is the home reaction. If you think people are hating the war in Iraq now, try and send in a crapload of "part-time soldiers" who mostly just want to look cool in uniform and get school money.

More cowardness (desertion) and protests are forecasted...

True enough. I think the casualty situation would be higher with Iran too - not something the US is very good at tolerating. While actual invasion casualties probably wouldn't (just guessing here) be that high, I would imagine that Iran's version of insurgency would be alot larger and more costly. Iran's people are alot more cohesive than Iraq's, something that would probably aid insurgents.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 21, 2005, 16:28:07
Only if the US could not whip that population into a frenzy against the current government. 


"  But the administration is skeptical that Iran is bargaining in good faith. For its part, Iran says its nuclear program is aimed at producing energy, not weapons.

Rice said U.S. differences with Iran go well beyond its nuclear program.

"It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," she told senators. "It's difficult to find common ground with a government that is supporting Hezbollah and terrorist organizations that are determined to undermine the Middle East peace that we seek."

Khatami, travelling Thursday in Africa, seemed unconcerned about the consequences of a possible U.S. attack.

"We have prepared ourselves," he said, adding that he did not anticipate any "lunatic" military move by the United States because Washington has too many problems in Iraq. "  taken from canoe.ca  You think they don't know they are next?

Remember where there is a will there is a way.  It might not be easy but it is possible.  If they start with the paranoya at home and then let it spread world wide.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on January 21, 2005, 18:27:55
I guess it is time for Condi to step up to the plate and present some new 'solid evidence' that will give the US an excuse to complete its hat trick in the middle east/asia.   Maybe it will be some more aluminum tubes, or some more mobile chemical warfare units, or that Iran might make nukes, sometime, maybe, if let them, cause we only give them to our buddies.   Wonder who will be in the coalition this time, Israel of course, and ten or so countries that no one has ever heard of, oh and the UK, cant forget bush's lapdog Tony Blair.  

Seriously though, with their forces stretched so thin, and little international support, with US forces creeping ever so closer to Russia, China and India, I dont think they can pull it off, some airstrikes maybe (preemptive precision strikes).   Any thoughts? :cdn:

I have no doubt that the Iranians would try to nuke Israel.   Evidence or not..some strategical air strikes, small scale raids and cross-border ops might just be what the doctor ordered ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: dutchie on January 21, 2005, 19:45:03
I have no doubt that the Iranians would try to nuke Israel.   Evidence or not..some strategical air strikes, small scale raids and cross-border ops might just be what the doctor ordered ;D

Well that's all the proof I need! While were at it, I have always suspected that Papua New Guinea has plans to throw spears at Australia, so let's nuke 'em. I have no proof of course, but seeing as you 'have no doubt' and don't need 'evidence' to wage war on another nation, I figure we can take care of those little buggers too.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on January 21, 2005, 19:51:10
Only if the US could not whip that population into a frenzy against the current government.   


"  But the administration is skeptical that Iran is bargaining in good faith. For its part, Iran says its nuclear program is aimed at producing energy, not weapons.

Rice said U.S. differences with Iran go well beyond its nuclear program.

"It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," she told senators. "It's difficult to find common ground with a government that is supporting Hezbollah and terrorist organizations that are determined to undermine the Middle East peace that we seek."

Khatami, travelling Thursday in Africa, seemed unconcerned about the consequences of a possible U.S. attack.

"We have prepared ourselves," he said, adding that he did not anticipate any "lunatic" military move by the United States because Washington has too many problems in Iraq. "   taken from canoe.ca   You think they don't know they are next?

Remember where there is a will there is a way.   It might not be easy but it is possible.   If they start with the paranoya at home and then let it spread world wide.



I don't think it's unlikely that the US is going to manage to turn the Iranian people against their government when even the Kurds in Iran don't bother rebelling. The ayatollah's coup back in the 70's wasn't exactly unpopular and the memories of US meddling in their internal affairs and during the Iran-Iraq war probably aren't gone.

I have no doubt that the Iranians would try to nuke Israel.  

I do. Iran's not stupid - I don't think they'd just up and nuke Israel because they don't like them. North Korea says it's going to nuke someone every other day but there's a big difference between what countries SAY they can or want to do and what they actually do. I think Iran knows it'll get nuked by Israel and the US if they so much as fart in Israel's direction on a windy day after it gets nukes.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on January 21, 2005, 20:36:11
Why not just allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons ?
What will they do with their new capability ?
How will that affect the world oil market ?
Could Iran blackmail the other oil producing countries in the region essentially controlling a big chunk of the world oil market ?
With nuclear weapons Iran would have the ability to destroy Israel - would they do it ?
With nuclear weapons would Iran give nuclear devices to terrorists to be used against the uS or other perceived enemies ?

US pre-emptive strike against Iran thus stopping/delaying its program and none of the above possibilities become reality. Given the pro's and con's I think a pre-emptive strike using air power would be the best option.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 21, 2005, 20:42:52
Quote,
I do. Iran's not stupid - I don't think they'd just up and nuke Israel because they don't like them. North Korea says it's going to nuke someone every other day but there's a big difference between what countries SAY they can or want to do and what they actually do. I think Iran knows it'll get nuked by Israel and the US if they so much as fart in Israel's direction on a windy day after it gets nukes.

Sweet mother of God,.......Ape and I agree on something, any country who would use a nuclear weapon in this day and age would have to be 100% willing to be destroyed themselves.  The govt. of Iran are smarter than this, my concern would be the "passing off" of nuclear "suitcase" bombs to the people who would not care if they destroyed themselves as long as it was on American soil.
Except for that one demented guy in North Korea, I can't see anyone using a nuke anymore unless it was in a "all hope  gone scenario.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on January 22, 2005, 00:17:30
Well that's all the proof I need! While were at it, I have always suspected that Papua New Guinea has plans to throw spears at Australia, so let's nuke 'em. I have no proof of course, but seeing as you 'have no doubt' and don't need 'evidence' to wage war on another nation, I figure we can take care of those little buggers too.

I realize my position isn't exactly on strong moral footing, but I still think war should be waged.   At least, on a limited scale.  
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on January 22, 2005, 01:01:02
What worries me is the fact that if any nuke no matter how small or crude is ever given to a third party or stolen for that matter, and falls into the hands of the extremists who are willing to use it against the west (and they want to believe me) which includes not only North America, but the UK, continental Europe and Australia, plus places in their own region. Given the chance, it can and will happen. Its just a matter of time.

I suggest a surgical airstrike on any plant capable of manufacturing such weapons in Iran. If allowed such a plant there will be a power struggle for other nations nearby to do the same, and that ole fear of 21st century technology with 13th century mentality comes up again, and thats what scares me.

Don't think Canada is immune either.

Don't give these godless hethan fundamentalists the chance to even think of having such weapons. If an airstrike happened tomorrow morning, I would feel more safe.

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on January 22, 2005, 09:56:17
What worries me is the fact that if any nuke no matter how small or crude is ever given to a third party or stolen for that matter, and falls into the hands of the extremists who are willing to use it against the west (and they want to believe me) which includes not only North America, but the UK, continental Europe and Australia, plus places in their own region. Given the chance, it can and will happen. Its just a matter of time.

I suggest a surgical airstrike on any plant capable of manufacturing such weapons in Iran. If allowed such a plant there will be a power struggle for other nations nearby to do the same, and that ole fear of 21st century technology with 13th century mentality comes up again, and thats what scares me.

Don't think Canada is immune either.

Don't give these godless hethan fundamentalists the chance to even think of having such weapons. If an airstrike happened tomorrow morning, I would feel more safe.

Cheers,

Wes

I agree with you on surgical air strikes.   It's not the Iranian government that is likely to go nuclear, but rather some of the radical factions that could take control of these potential wpns. It took me awhile to accept the Bush administration's preemptive military policy, but I think it's the way to go. As far as I'm concerned, Iran is already indirectly waging war against America with terrorism. All the more reason to nip them in the bud, before it's too late..
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: jmacleod on January 22, 2005, 11:01:08
Israel knows quite a bit about the present State of Iran. I doubt that Iran will be attacked by
any country, and the Iranian Mullahs are well aware of the lack of any real intent. Removal
of the Mullah led government is the answer, defined in some detail in recent articles in several
British periodicals and newspapers. The U.S. government is in all probability working out a
withdrawal plan for leaving Iraq at the present time - the ultimate fate of Iraq is in the hands
of Iraqi citizens in any event, and not the U.S. Army, who essentially have completed what they
set out to do and know that there is considerable political pressure in the U.S. to bring the
troops "back home". The region will be more or less unstable for some time, but forces in
Iraq, Iran and Syria will eventually dominate the future of these countries - not as democracies
perhaps, but focused on a better life for all, long overdue in the region. MacLeod
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on January 22, 2005, 11:57:17

The U.S. government is in all probability working out a
withdrawal plan for leaving Iraq at the present time - the ultimate fate of Iraq is in the hands of Iraqi citizens in any event, and not the U.S. Army, who essentially have completed what they set out to do and know that there is considerable political pressure in the U.S. to bring the troops "back home".

I haven't heard the Bush administration say anything about withdrawing.   What makes you think they will? If it came down to it, a tactical withdrawal to the Kurdish North might make more sence since it wouldn't require the troop density of Iraq to sustain long term mil operations.     
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on January 22, 2005, 12:54:43
Given the poor cooperation we are getting from Turkey by moving into the Kurdish area we would find ourselves stranded. Long term there will be some form of US presence in Iraq for a long time ,it may be in the form of an air base and a forward deployed division but a presence none the less. Kuwait and the Gulf States will continue to be the logistical base for US operations in the region. Iran is surrounded by US airbases and is well within range of sea based TLAM [conventional and 200kt W-80 nuclear warhead]. Iran would be hard pressed to stop an attack by B-2 bombers. The real problem is the dispersal of the Iranian nuclear program. But for my money take out the reactor and you setback their program many years. Of course Iran would try to launch terrorist attacks which might escalate into a wider bombing campaign against key targets in Iran.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Gunnerlove on January 22, 2005, 13:02:08
Quote
godless hethan fundamentalists

Last I heard they did believe in god. Only they call him by a different name.   

If the US feels they can take on the entire middle east without further destabilizing the region they are insane. Gradual change is the key to stability. When religious people are threatened they turn to their religion and become increasingly conservative (If you don't believe me look at the last US election). Increasing the number of extremely conservative fundamentalist Muslims in the world is not in any westernized nations best interest.
A rational educated population worldwide should be one of the key building blocks for international security. Instead we seem to be creating far more fanatics (on both sides of the Bible/Koran fence) who are convinced that their religion is the best and that God is on their side.      

But hey maybe I am wrong and a decade of random bombings and sanctions, followed by invasion and occupation might stabilize Iran and improve world opinion of the US.    ::)

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on January 22, 2005, 14:14:01
Actually the regime in Tehran is increasingly isolated from its own people. The regime has blocked the moderates by preventing them from even getting on the ballot. Until the people are willing to take to the streets they will remain under the heel of the ayatollah's. Of course a precise air campaign might be able to knock out the props that hold the regime up.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bert on January 22, 2005, 14:43:45
I don't think it is in the US's best interest to see "any regime change" occur in Iran.   The
enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't.

The theocracy in Iran is knowing of the rules of detente.   If Iran uses a nuclear response
in return they will receive one and it is definitely lop-sided in favor of the US.   Even if the
nuclear facilities in Iran are destroyed it does not necessarily mitigate further nuclear
research, development, acquisition, or manufacture.

Iran is clearly concerned about changes in Iraq's society, methods of government,
limitations to its areas of interest, having the US next door as it may put pressures on its
own internal problems. The US understands and uses it to control and influence Iran in
the region.   This is a quiet controllable simmering of conflict understood by both parties
despite the usual rhetoric.

An pre-emptive attack on Iran could put the situation out of control.   One doesn't
know what the Iranian response could be, the escalation of Iranian supported
groups around Israel, the response of countries in the region, the consequences of
world reaction.   It is in the US's best interest to manage the situation in a way
that is controllable, won't over-stretch the assets in the region given a military response
by Iran, and balance gains and cost of any pre-emptive action.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Marauder on January 22, 2005, 15:11:38
Another tack would be to locate and erase the scientists willing to work on giving any whack-job fundamentalists The Bomb. If you keep taking out the wetware, all the hardware in the world does you no good. A bullet in the head or knife in the throat in the middle of the night is far more quite and less likely to give the media a hardon than a mushroom cloud over the known location of a nuclear reactor. Eventually the mullahs will get wise, but hopefully by then any scientist with a shred of self-preservation insitinct will get a case of amnesia when it comes to reading tech diagrams (given by the French or Russians no doubt).
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bert on January 22, 2005, 15:24:17
That assumes the Iranians have everything nicely centralized, gathered intelligence is 100% correct,
and everthing works like clockwork.     The US may have assets in the region to make the attack as
you suggest but not to deal with the possible consequences.   Noticable movement of militaries
will take place. The escalation will be noticed by the Iranians and their well aware of the possibility.  
I'm sure the US and Iran have carefully considered the scenario from various angles.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on January 22, 2005, 15:42:02
I don't think it is in the US's best interest to see "any regime change" occur in Iran.   The
enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't.

The theocracy in Iran is knowing of the rules of detente.   If Iran uses a nuclear response
in return they will receive one and it is definitely lop-sided in favor of the US.   Even if the
nuclear facilities in Iran are destroyed it does not necessarily mitigate further nuclear
research, development, acquisition, or manufacture.

Iran is clearly concerned about changes in Iraq's society, methods of government,
limitations to its areas of interest, having the US next door as it may put pressures on its
own internal problems. The US understands and uses it to control and influence Iran in
the region.   This is a quiet controllable simmering of conflict understood by both parties
despite the usual rhetoric.

An pre-emptive attack on Iran could put the situation out of control.   One doesn't
know what the Iranian response could be, the escalation of Iranian supported
groups around Israel, the response of countries in the region, the consequences of
world reaction.   It is in the US's best interest to manage the situation in a way
that is controllable, won't over-stretch the assets in the region given a military response
by Iran, and balance gains and cost of any pre-emptive action.

You raise some interesting points. Another interesting point is that the US preemptive policy has proved very effective in curtailing terrorism on the US home front,, while most of the world sits back and watches. I think the US needs to let it all hang out and clean out the hornet's nest once and for all. If it extends to limited warfare in Iran..so be it.   Doing nothing while Iran builds its nuclear capability doesn't seem like much of an option.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on January 22, 2005, 16:07:40
Last I heard they did believe in god. Only they call him by a different name.   



Extremists are using their religion as a front and excuse to promote terrorism and murder (look how many muslims are dying at the hands of their own kind) and are a disgrace to mainstream Islam, hence why I call these cowards godless murderers. I am in no way implying that muslims are godless, the majority like us just want the same things we do.

So, Mr Love, try seeing things outside the square.

Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on January 22, 2005, 16:13:51
I agree with you on surgical air strikes.  

It was back in about 1981 that IDF used its aircraft to destroy a nuclear facility in a nearby 'ME' country. It makes sense to me to do it again, this time it does not have to be Israel, but I don't think they are about to sit back and do nothing.

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: jmacleod on January 22, 2005, 16:40:29
There are many very articulate and compelling opinons about Iran and the current state of Iran
-Iraq situations or possible situations on this site, which are appreciated. I base my opinions on
the State of Iran today on two sources; people whom I have worked with from the Northrop
Corporation, California, who had a significant presence in Iran in the days of the Shah, and my
association with Israeli industries. In particular, I read DEBKAfile on a daily basis. The best intelligence
on the Iran of January 2005 comes from Israel and France who have for different reasons, a vested
interest in knowing a great deal about the intentions of the Mullahs, who recently for instance
executed two Iranian nuclear scientists who attempted to flee Iran through Syria. Fellow readers,
take the time to read the reports in DEBKAfile and Paris Match (en francais of course). North American
news sources are biased, untruthful, and motivated by commercial interests, in particular, in Canada
the god-awful CBC. There is also, in my opinion, based on information from American friends and
associates, no doubt that the Bush government are focused on an orderly departure from Iraq - a
good source of information on this thesis can be found on the US site "Military.com" MacLeod
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: TA on January 22, 2005, 16:43:46
You raise some interesting points. Another interesting point is that the US preemptive policy has proved very effective in curtailing terrorism on the US home front,, while most of the world sits back and watches. I think the US needs to let it all hang out and clean out the hornet's nest once and for all. If it extends to limited warfare in Iran..so be it.   Doing nothing while Iran builds its nuclear capability doesn't seem like much of an option.

I'm unsure how you can support your statement that a preemptive policy has been effective at curtailing terrorism on US soil- could you please elaborate?

In general, an operation in Iran would have to be justified with readily verifiable intelligence that the consequences of not acting far out way those of the operation- an international Defence of Necessity, per se.   What it boils down to is that one country is going to bomb another country because: it thinks it may have nuclear capabilities, those nuclear capabilities might be passed on to some terrorist organization, and that terrorist organization might attack another country.   What of Iran's response to this action?   If they did possess nuclear weapons, is it conceivable that they are all centralized in one location or in locations that the US knows of?   As such, if one facility survives, creates a nuclear weapons, and then passes it off to said terrorist groups in retaliation of an the offensive, this creates a bit of a vicious cycle.   

I don't believe Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon- directly or through a proxy.   The consequence is that the smallest shred of heretic evidence pointing the finger at them would lead to a very bad state in the world.

So, unless you can go to the world stage and say, "Hey Tehran, here's undeniable proof that your building nuclear weapons- stop it, or else", I hope this argument remains academic!

Cheers
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on January 22, 2005, 18:04:15
I'm unsure how you can support your statement that a preemptive policy has been effective at curtailing terrorism on US soil- could you please elaborate?

The CIA effectively taking out terrorist targets in Yemen would fit nicely into Washington's preemptive policy.   These type of actions will continue to curtail terrorism,since they won't be around to mount attacks on US soil.     

Quote
So, unless you can go to the world stage and say, "Hey Tehran, here's undeniable proof that your building nuclear weapons- stop it, or else", I hope this argument remains academic!

I hope "this argument" materializes into taking out any nuclear capability Iran has.     
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on January 22, 2005, 18:12:33
It was back in about 1981 that IDF used its aircraft to destroy a nuclear facility in a nearby 'ME' country. It makes sense to me to do it again, this time it does not have to be Israel, but I don't think they are about to sit back and do nothing.

Cheers,

Wes

Kudos to Israel.. They did the right thing.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on January 22, 2005, 22:08:17
Quote
Stratfor
www.stratfor.com
SITUATION REPORTS - January 22, 2005
2349 GMT - EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner says the threat of a U.S. military attack against Iran is not that great, predicting that a diplomatic solution ultimately would be found, although negotiations likely would be difficult. U.S. President George W. Bush warned Jan. 17 that the United States would launch a military strike against Iran if Tehran does not end its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

...Someone care explain to me how the EU suddenly can decide what the US will do?

Anyways, I'm on the fence for this one.. On one hand we (the West) have to be careful of not letting a crazed state created nukes and possibly completely destabilize the whole region, and give nukes to terrorists, but on the other hand we can't go and destabilize it ourselves and created a very very bad situation.

And another trouble is finding allies who'll let "us" go into Iran using their territory:

Quote
Stratfor
www.stratfor.com
SITUATION REPORTS - January 20, 2005
1405 GMT - The Afghan Defense Ministry said it would not allow a third country to use Afghan territory against neighboring Iran, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported Jan. 20. Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zaher Azimi said that while there was a large U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, Kabul would never be convinced to allow Washington to send special forces into Iran -- a reaction to a recent report in The New Yorker magazine of a covert U.S. military reconnaissance operation under way in Iran.

Anyways, all in alll, this could turn ugly REAL fast. Let's just hope it doesn't.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 23, 2005, 19:04:22
Ugly it is already

Nasty is and real are what you have to hope it doesn't become.

Iran will be quite capable of giving the US more then just a bloody nose should they choose to invade.

Going after the leadership of Iran is an option but one that comes with possible unintended consiquences.  Having a harsher party rule.

Yes the air strikes may work and put back Iran's nuclear weapon program 10 yrs but what if that just pisses them off and they start to sell the stuff just to make dirty bombs to prove a point.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on January 24, 2005, 03:21:08
I'm not trying to fan a fire here or anything, nor am I being sarcastic or rhetorical when asking this but can anyone tell me what right we, the US, or anyone else has to attack Iran or take any action against them (save passive actions such as economic sanction) because they're seeking nuclear weapons?





Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on January 24, 2005, 03:32:14
You're fan'n  ;D

Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 24, 2005, 08:38:03
Mon, January 24, 2005

Strike at Iran possible

By Peter Worthington -- For the Toronto Sun

 
A topic of concern around Washington in these days of post-inauguration and pre-State of the Union address, is what's next?

President George W. Bush's inauguration speech left some puzzled, others encouraged, many uneasy.

He talked a lot about freedom, without getting into specifics, and didn't mention Iraq. That got people buzzing.
 

What he seemed to be doing was giving a blueprint for the future -- a future that extended beyond his term in office, deep into the unforeseeable future.

To some it was a perilous approach, to others it was inspired. Thinking big, thinking beyond. An agenda for America.

No lame duck

What Bush did convey, was that he intends his final term to be no lame duck administration.

His fixation on freedom and democracy in the world conveyed to a growing number the likelihood that the next big target for his aggressive democracy is Iran -- not a war, not ultimatums or embargoes, but direct action. Something has to be done about Iran's already considerable nuclear ambitions.

There isn't much time.

It is an issue that also worries Europe.

In 1981 Israel did the world a favour when it bombed and destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor which was intended for nuclear weapons, with a large assist from France.

That message was absorbed by Iran, which apparently has no single Osirak-like site, but diverse sites to develop various aspects of the program, with back-ups and duplication.

Some sites are underground, some in population centres, all of them widely distributed.

So air strikes alone are unreasonable and unlikely.

What seems possible in the future -- that is, during President Bush's watch - is sabotage on the ground. Perhaps a Special Forces style attack, with limited air co-ordination -- an aggressive raid to eliminate some or all key nuclear sites. Then get out.

In Pakistan

While Western intelligence has some knowledge of where these sites are, the ones who know best are in Pakistan, which is believed to have helped Iran develop its nuclear potential in the days before Pakistan was an American ally, and when it backed the Taliban of Afghanistan and al-Qaida.

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf changed all that when he decided President Bush was serious and not one to be toyed with, and threw his future in with America's.

Some realists speculate that there already are Special Forces inside Iraq, and that at some point an un-admitted alliance of American, Pakistani and German commandoes, with a possible inclusion of British, will be tasked with eliminating Iran's nuclear sites. Or at least some of them, before it's too late.

The one thing that seems fairly certain (one can never be absolutely sure in such things) is that Israel will not be directly involved.

Iran has few friends in the Islamic world who look forward to the ayatollahs and mullahs wielding nuclear weapons.

Since in foreign affairs as in war (and love) success is the prime virtue and failure the cardinal sin, judgment awaits the outcome of this nuclear showdown. Will, or will not, Iran become the next nuclear world influence?

Regardless of what happens in Iraq (a Shiite win in the Iraq election seems assured), it won't affect what is viewed as necessary in Iran.

As for the third member of Bush's "axis of evil" trio -- North Korea -- little action is planned. Kim Jong Il is so obviously a fruitcake with no allies except Cuba, and is in questionable health anyway, that nature will likely settle that issue.

Maybe the future will become clearer at the State of the Union address on Feb. 2 -- probably more about America's self-decreed responsibility if not to make the whole world democratic, to at least make the world safer for democracies.

Not a bad legacy


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2005/01/24/908194.html
 
 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 24, 2005, 13:53:39
Ape

Did you miss the memo on the US being appointed the defenders of democracy and international policeman?  :threat:

If you did sorry.

OK enough of the sarcasm.  ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on January 24, 2005, 18:19:43
Ape

Did you miss the memo on the US being appointed the defenders of democracy and international policeman?   :threat:

If you did sorry.

OK enough of the sarcasm.   ;D

 ;D As much as I'd love to comment, I don't want to be inflammatory.

Regarding my previous post, I don't necessarily oppose non-violent efforts against proliferation but it doesn't seem to me that taking overly aggressive postures towards countries is likely to make them NOT want nuclear weapons - quite the opposite. If a man with a big gun bent on obtaining your subservience keeps threatening you, what are you going to do - capitulate or get your own gun? If you subscribe to the old "better to die free than live on your knees" maxim, you get a gun.

I guess what I'm saying is that, in this case, we might get catch more flies with sugar than we will with s***.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 24, 2005, 22:36:57
I am always puzzeled by posts which seem to get the positions reversed and postulate Iran as the aggrivated party in this dispute.

Iran is the nation actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran is the nation that sponsors terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, as well as many others.

Iran is the nation which seeks to export an Islamic revolution. (Among others. Saudi Arabia has also done so, although it is questionable if this was state policy.)

Iran is the nation that openly seeks the destruction of a democratic state (Israel)

Iran is the nation which has branded the United States "The Great Satan", and openly incites violent actions against Americans everywhere in the world.

Iran's government uses its oil wealth to further these aims, rather than concentrate on the various needs of its own people, who are enslaved by the Mullahs.

George W Bush is continuing the unofficial policy of "containment" begun at the end of the Carter Administration, but is now openly offering moral support to any pro democracy movements in Iran (read here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23747-2005Jan20.html and draw your own conclusions). Further efforts through trade and diplomacy may occur, and as long as Iran keeps their provocations to a minimum, the Americans will keep their "terrible swift sword" sheathed. Otherwise, read the Iran and Syria-war of the future? thread http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,25162.90.html
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 11:48:03
Majoor i agree Iran has done all of those things.

But he without sin cast the first stone.

America is the only nation in the world to use nuclear weapons.

America sponsered the CONTRA rebels

America traded arms for hostages in Iran

America sponsored the IRA

and the list could go on.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't doubt that Iran has some evil intent.  But without prove of this how could an attack be justified.  If the US does it alone why do we have a UN? 

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 25, 2005, 12:55:33
The list could go on, but these situations you list have little or nothing to do with the current situation that the Iranian government is creating. Grievance lists of American actions (especially with no reference to why these actions took place) are very much like Osama Bin Laden complaining about the destruction of the Moorish Andelusian state by Ferdinand and Isabella in the 1490's.

As for the UN, based on their constant anti semitism, inaction during genocides in formar Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia and now Dafur, revelations about the extent of the corruption in the UN run Oil for Food program and the continuing "sex for peacekeepers" scandle in the Congo, well, "why do we have a UN?"
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 13:08:02
Ok i will update my list to make it more relevant

US attack Iraq with no prove of WMD or positive links to the OSMA

US openly threatens Iran a sovergin nation.

US openly threatens Syria a sovergin nation.

they branded the US the "Great Satan while the US was supplying IRAQ weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.  They also branded the USSR the lesser Satan but still bought weapons from them.

I have no love for Iran but i just don't think the US should go around and say hey change to be like us or we will kick your ***. 

I don't see them talking to China that way or to a lesser extent North Korea. 

If they could prove that Iran is threating the free world by selling nuclear weapons or waste to terrorist groups i mean real proof not that betty crocker instant bake stuff they had for Iraq. then they could make a case for it.

As for the UN what mutinational group does not have scandals.  Does this meant it is invaluable or just requires a revamping of its internal doctrine?  (kinda like the Canadian government)

The UN is still a worth while body that should play a larger role in the world and needs to be revamped to do it.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on January 25, 2005, 13:29:17
Another good call was when Reagan ordered terrorist targets taken out in Libya back in the 1980s.       
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: dutchie on January 25, 2005, 13:38:26
Wizard:

Some excellent points regarding the US, however, one of your examples is outdated and doesn't include important context info.

The US was justified in using nuclear weapons against Japan because: a- the alternative (mainland invasion of Japan) would have caused more casualties than the 2 nukes did; and b- they were in a state of TOTAL WAR with Japan.

And as Majoor pointed out, that was 60 years ago.



Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 14:22:39
Yea i kinda updated that list

Still that is one of the major threats of Iran according to the US is it not the fact that they are developing nuclear weapons?

While the US was the only nation to use them be it 60 yrs ago or not.  Total war or not.  Do you think they would have used them in Europe?  I doubt it highly doubt it.

Staying on topic though let he without sin cast the first stone.  I see no defense of America here?  Not looking for a fight but all nations have their skeletons.  Saber rattling will do little to solve the situation.  I can't remember who said it but you may catch more flies with sugar.  Not saying us an appeasement policy but maybe they should not threaten everybody at once.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 25, 2005, 14:51:01
I see no defense of America here?   Not looking for a fight but all nations have their skeletons.

Your second sentence answered your first, and perversly decimated any argument you might have been trying to make.  You're right, every nation DOES have it's "skeletons", yet people of a certain political persuaision insist on only protesting and criticizing the actions of the US.  That alone gives them all the justification they need.  Why bother listening to "world opinion", when the people who oppose your policies also turn a blind eye to the actions of those just as bad or even worse?  If people are going to be against you no matter what you do, you may as well do what's in your best interest.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 25, 2005, 15:11:45
The question of Iraqi WMD and terrorist links has been resolved in the positive for several years: The Senate Intelligence comittee and the President used the same sources and came to the same conclusions, Germany, France and the UK using their own sources also saw Iraq as a threat. A BBC journalist wrote a book called "A Higher Form of Killing" published in 2002 which also comes to the same conclusions. Cech intelligence has never recanted from their claim to have observed Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague several weeks prior to 9/11; and the 9/11 comission report also outlines links between the Ba'athists and Al Qaeda.

If you consider that "Betty Crocker" stuff, well only the explosion of an Iranian nuke on your doorstep will convince you.

Syria and Iran are sovereign nations, and Dr Rice pointed out that sovereign nations which choose to sponsor, supply, support and train Jihadis to kill Iraqi citizens and coalition members in Iraq (another sovereign nation BTW) will have to be prepared for possible consequences. China and North Korea can watch the news, American actions are all the talking points they need right now.

I don't see any signs the UN is making attempts to reform, if they do it will be a wonderful thing, but until then, please take their calls and say I am not available at this time. Read this thread: http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,25875.0.html, then ask yourself who would you rather have come to the rescue if a natural disaster was to level your community; the US or the UN?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 16:06:22
Your second sentence answered your first, and perversly decimated any argument you might have been trying to make.   You're right, every nation DOES have it's "skeletons", yet people of a certain political persuaision insist on only protesting and criticizing the actions of the US.   That alone gives them all the justification they need.   Why bother listening to "world opinion", when the people who oppose your policies also turn a blind eye to the actions of those just as bad or even worse?   If people are going to be against you no matter what you do, you may as well do what's in your best interest.

48

So if America saw our porse borders or poor immigration policy, lack of spending on the military, slack court system....... and on and on, as a threat to their national security you would be ok if they came in and took the place over? To you know do what was in their best interests.

Give me a break

Majoor

How can you say that those issues have been solved in the positive for years.  Did they find any of this "stock pile" NO  what firm terrorist links did they find our have.If Germany and Frnace saw Iraq as a threat why did they not support the war to remove Saddam and free Iraq?

"9/11 comission report also outlines links between the Ba'athists and Al Qaeda" they also had against they Saudi government but what happened to that?  Oh yea an AMERICAN court found it insuffecint

I think that sometimes we get blinded by the giant spin machine that is the American media.  And yea i consider it Betty Crocker stuff cause it is all circumstancial and would never hold up in any court.  IF they had the hard proof it would have been an easy sell to the UN and the rest of the world but they did not.

So by your own words "Dr Rice pointed out that sovereign nations which choose to sponsor, supply, support and train Jihadis to kill Iraqi citizens and coalition members in Iraq (another sovereign nation BTW) will have to be prepared for possible consequences"  You believe Iraq to be a sovereign nation right now?  Not a puppet government of the Americans? 

You know that if this type of conflict was occuring in China that the US would not be able to play the game they are now of intimidation or posturing tough to do with army the size of China's....  watch tv and see america's actions?  you will have to explain this one.  A conflict with either of those two nations would eat up a hell of resources and manpower then anything in the middle east would.

I would never want a nuclear bomb to go off on anyones doorstep to prove a point.  I am saying that they sure as hell would need a lot more evidence then they have now.  Not to say the Iran is an inocent party in all of this but i think putting America on a pedistal is a mistake.  They are not the international police man that they think they are. 

As for they UN they do need to change and it starts at the top will it come i don't know.  But that is the body that should be acting as the international police man not the US.

As for the UN comming to help or the US I would not care who came, you are bringing two seperate issues together here.  One of the US comming to the humanitrian aid of nations to forcing their will on nations.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 25, 2005, 16:32:03
Ok that's enough.  Nobody wants to hear your conspiracy theorie reitarated again.  It's been debated to death multiple times, and this thread isn't the place for it.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on January 25, 2005, 16:42:51
Ok i will update my list to make it more relevant

US attack Iraq with no prove of WMD or positive links to the OSMA

US openly threatens Iran a sovergin nation.

US openly threatens Syria a sovergin nation.

they branded the US the "Great Satan while the US was supplying IRAQ weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.   They also branded the USSR the lesser Satan but still bought weapons from them.

As for the UN what mutinational group does not have scandals.   Does this meant it is invaluable or just requires a revamping of its internal doctrine?   (kinda like the Canadian government)

The UN is still a worth while body that should play a larger role in the world and needs to be revamped to do it.



What!!!!!!

Have you been smoking hemp in a uni pub sucking on a warm beer? Get some fresh air and eat a reality biscut instead of those funny tasting brownies.

Pal, you got alot to learn, and not from a text book either.

I cannot say one thing good about Iran, and I find it hard to phathom what you are saying.   They are a serious threat to de-stablise the region should they develope these weapons. So what would you say if Iran went ahead and got a nuclear weapon manufactured? They will, its just a matter of time.

Don't think for one second this technology would not be used agsinst us.

Canadians are not immune either. Infact most Iranians probably don't even know what a Canada is ( living uneducated and oppressed under a wicked ruthless regime). You, Mr OZ are already condemmed by the colour of your skin and the culture you have. Just remember they hate you as much as any westerner and they would dance in the streets on your corpse if they had a chance. Don't go painting the USA as the enemy here. I value my freedom and way of life, so if it takes an airstrike to prolong it, I support it 110%.

Shame on Pakistan and other nations for helping Iran out with this technology. Again 21 century technology with a very dangerous 13th century mentality. That really frightens me and I am not afraid to admit it.

As for the USA using nukes so what! Are you condemming the USA for this? That was 60 yeras ago, and it ended a dirty war which not only would have caused 100's of thousands of Allied casualties (including Canadians) if Japan was to be invaded, and an estimated 1,000,000,000+ civilians.

I don't want Iran do develope any such weapons and I support the 'disarmament' in any way possible to ensure this does not happen. Either by pen or sword ( I know the pen won't work here).

In the years to come, I think the west is in for a rough ride.

As for the UN, they are hopeless, and are not what they used to be. Too busy on trying to be PC rather than get the job done (could not organise a gang-bang in a monkey *****-house with a first full of banannas). when you got a cancer you exercise it, not dance around undecided, as if ya do that, your dead!

I just want a more safe world, and if it means keeping these countries full of twisted hate in check by what ever means possible lets just get the job done.

I am no war monger by any means, but I believe in whats right, and sometimes you gotta give someone a bloody nose if the councilling does not get through.

Your profile is empty. I would like to see at least some mininum info for us to see who you are. You like to 'walk the walk' now its time to 'talk the talk' Enough annonynimity. I have read many of your posts which seem to be tainted with a very leftist flavour (being PC here for a sec - 'not that there is anything wrong with that' - Seinfeld quote).

Back up your posts by giving us some credentials. Have a squizz at mine. I am not shy.
Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: muskrat89 on January 25, 2005, 17:37:46
Quote
How can you say that those issues have been solved in the positive for years.  Did they find any of this "stock pile" NO  what firm terrorist links did they find our have.If Germany and Frnace saw Iraq as a threat why did they not support the war to remove Saddam and free Iraq?


Stephen Hayes has recently released a book that documents the connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Believe whatever you want....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp


Quote
The Connection
From the June 7, 2004 issue: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right.
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/07/2004, Volume 009, Issue 37
   
From The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America
by Stephen F. Hayes.


"THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED THE COUNTRY with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda," claimed former Vice President Al Gore last Wednesday.

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," declared Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, in an interview on March 21, 2004.

The editor of the Los Angeles Times labeled as "myth" the claim that links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been proved. A recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." 60 Minutes anchor Lesley Stahl was equally certain: "There was no connection."

And on it goes. This conventional wisdom--that our two most determined enemies were not in league, now or ever--is comforting. It is also wrong.

In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately recognized the potential significance of his find. According to a report
 
last week in the Wall Street Journal, Shakir appears on three different lists of Fedayeen officers.

An Iraqi of that name, Carney knew, had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks. Shakir had been nominally employed as a "greeter" by Malaysian Airlines, a job he told associates he had gotten through a contact at the Iraqi embassy. More curious, Shakir's Iraqi embassy contact controlled his schedule, telling him when to show up for work and when to take a day off.

A greeter typically meets VIPs upon arrival and accompanies them through the sometimes onerous procedures of foreign travel. Shakir was instructed to work on January 5, 2000, and on that day, he escorted one Khalid al Mihdhar from his plane to a waiting car. Rather than bid his guest farewell at that point, as a greeter typically would have, Shakir climbed into the car with al Mihdhar and accompanied him to the Kuala Lumpur condominium of Yazid Sufaat, the American-born al Qaeda terrorist who hosted the planning meeting.

The meeting lasted for three days. Khalid al Mihdhar departed Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok and eventually Los Angeles. Twenty months later, he was aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it plunged into the Pentagon at 9:38 A.M. on September 11. So were Nawaf al Hazmi and his younger brother, Salem, both of whom were also present at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.

Six days after September 11, Shakir was captured in Doha, Qatar. He had in his possession contact information for several senior al Qaeda terrorists: Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, brother of September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who helped mix the chemicals for the first World Trade Center attack and was given safe haven upon his return to Baghdad; and Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, otherwise known as Abu Hajer al Iraqi, described by one top al Qaeda detainee as Osama bin Laden's "best friend."

Despite all of this, Shakir was released. On October 21, 2001, he boarded a plane for Baghdad, via Amman, Jordan. He never made the connection. Shakir was detained by Jordanian intelligence. Immediately following his capture, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence on Shakir, the Iraqi government began exerting pressure on the Jordanians to release him. Some U.S. intelligence officials--primarily at the CIA--believed that Iraq's demand for Shakir's release was pro forma, no different from the requests governments regularly make on behalf of citizens detained by foreign governments. But others, pointing to the flurry of phone calls and personal appeals from the Iraqi government to the Jordanians, disagreed. This panicked reaction, they said, reflected an interest in Shakir at the highest levels of Saddam Hussein's regime.

CIA officials who interviewed Shakir in Jordan reported that he was generally uncooperative. But even in refusing to talk, he provided some important information: The interrogators concluded that his evasive answers reflected counterinterrogation techniques so sophisticated
 
that he had probably learned them from a government intelligence service. Shakir's Iraqi nationality, his contacts with the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia, the keen interest of Baghdad in his case, and now the appearance of his name on the rolls of Fedayeen officers--all this makes the Iraqi intelligence service the most likely source of his training.

The Jordanians, convinced that Shakir worked for Iraqi intelligence, went to the CIA with a bold proposal: Let's flip him. That is, the Jordanians would allow Shakir to return to Iraq on condition that he agree to report back on the activities of Iraqi intelligence. And, in one of the most egregious mistakes by U.S. intelligence after September 11, the CIA agreed to Shakir's release. He posted a modest bail and returned to Iraq.

He hasn't been heard from since.

The Shakir story is perhaps the government's strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11. It is far from conclusive; conceivably there were two Ahmed Hikmat Shakirs. And in itself, the evidence does not show that Saddam Hussein personally had foreknowledge of the attacks. Still--like the long, on-again-off-again relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda--it cannot be dismissed.


THERE WAS A TIME not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:


Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:


Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:


Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:


Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda terrorists struck almost simultaneously at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The blasts killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and wounded nearly 5,000. The Clinton administration determined within five days that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and moved swiftly to retaliate. One of the targets would be in Afghanistan. But the Clinton national security team wanted to strike hard simultaneously, much as the terrorists had. "The decision to go to [Sudan] was an add-on," says a senior intelligence officer involved in the targeting. "They wanted a dual strike."

A small group of Clinton administration officials, led by CIA director George Tenet and national security adviser Sandy Berger, reviewed a number of al Qaeda-linked targets in Sudan. Although bin Laden had left the African nation two years earlier, U.S. officials believed that he was still deeply involved in the Sudanese government-run Military Industrial Corporation (MIC).

The United States retaliated on August 20, 1998, striking al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant outside Khartoum. "Let me be very clear about this," said President Bill Clinton, addressing the nation after the strikes. "There is no question in my mind that the Sudanese factory was producing chemicals that are used--and can be used--in VX gas. This was a plant that was producing chemical warfare-related weapons, and we have physical evidence of that."

The physical evidence was a soil sample containing EMPTA, a precursor for VX nerve gas. Almost immediately, the decision to strike at al Shifa aroused controversy. U.S. officials expressed skepticism that the plant produced pharmaceuticals at all, but reporters on the ground in Sudan found aspirin bottles and a variety of other indications that the plant had, in fact, manufactured drugs. For journalists and many at the CIA, the case was hardly clear-cut. For one thing, the soil sample was collected from outside the plant's front gate, not within the grounds, and an internal CIA memo issued a month before the attacks had recommended gathering additional soil samples from the site before reaching any conclusions. "It caused a lot of heartburn at the agency," recalls a former top intelligence official.

The Clinton administration sought to dispel doubts about the targeting and, on August 24, 1998, made available a "senior intelligence official" to brief reporters on background. The briefer cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq" as one of the justifications for attacking it. The next day, undersecretary of state for political affairs Thomas Pickering briefed reporters at the National Press Club. Pickering explained that the intelligence community had been monitoring the plant for "at least two years," and that the evidence was "quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq." In all, at least six top Clinton administration officials have defended on the record the strikes in Sudan by citing a link to Iraq.

The Iraqis, of course, denied any involvement. "The Clinton government has fabricated yet another lie to the effect that Iraq had helped Sudan produce this chemical weapon," declared the political editor of Radio Iraq. Still, even as Iraq denied helping Sudan and al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, the regime lauded Osama bin Laden. On August 27, 1998, 20 days after al Qaeda attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa, Babel, the government newspaper run by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial proclaiming bin Laden "an Arab and Islamic hero."

Five months later, the same Richard Clarke who would one day claim that there was "absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraq was behind the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al Shifa plant. "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it," wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. "But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Later in 1999, the Congressional Research Service published a report on the psychology of terrorism. The report created a stir in May 2002 when critics of President Bush cited it to suggest that his administration should have given more thought to suicide hijackings. On page 7 of the 178-page document was a passage about a possible al Qaeda attack on Washington, D.C., that "could take several forms." In one scenario, "suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the White House."

A network anchor wondered if it was possible that the White House had somehow missed the report. A senator cited it in calling for an investigation into the 9/11 attacks. A journalist read excerpts to the secretary of defense and raised a familiar question: "What did you know and when did you know it?"

But another passage of the same report has gone largely unnoticed. Two paragraphs before, also on page 7, is this: "If Iraq's Saddam Hussein decide to use terrorists to attack the continental United States [he] would likely turn to bin Laden's al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is among the Islamic groups recruiting increasingly skilled professionals," including "Iraqi chemical weapons experts and others capable of helping to develop WMD. Al Qaeda poses the most serious terrorist threat to U.S. security interests, for al Qaeda's well-trained terrorists are engaged in a terrorist jihad against U.S. interests worldwide."

CIA director George Tenet echoed these sentiments in a letter to Congress on October 7, 2002:


--Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

--We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

--Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

--Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

--We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

--Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.


Tenet has never backed away from these assessments. Senator Mark Dayton, a Democrat from Minnesota, challenged him on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in an exchange before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2004. Tenet reiterated his judgment that there had been numerous "contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that in the days before the war the Iraqi regime had provided "training and safe haven" to al Qaeda associates, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi. What the U.S. intelligence community could not claim was that the Iraqi regime had "command and control" over al Qaeda terrorists. Still, said Tenet, "it was inconceivable to me that Zarqawi and two dozen [Egyptian Islamic Jihad] operatives could be operating in Baghdad without Iraq knowing."


SO WHAT should Washington do now? The first thing the Bush administration should do is create a team of intelligence experts--or preferably competing teams, each composed of terrorism experts and forensic investigators--to explore the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. For more than a year, the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group has investigated the nature and scope of Iraq's program to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. At various times in its brief history, a small subgroup of ISG investigators (never more than 15 people) has looked into Iraqi connections with al Qaeda. This is not enough.

Despite the lack of resources devoted to Iraq-al Qaeda connections, the Iraq Survey Group has obtained some interesting new information. In the spring of 1992, according to Iraqi Intelligence documents obtained by the ISG after the war, Osama bin Laden met with Iraqi Intelligence officials in Syria. A second document, this one captured by the Iraqi National Congress and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency, then listed bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence "asset" who "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." A third Iraqi Intelligence document, this one an undated internal memo, discusses strategy for an upcoming meeting between Iraqi Intelligence, bin Laden, and a representative of the Taliban. On the agenda: "attacking American targets." This seems significant.

A second critical step would be to declassify as much of the Iraq-al Qaeda intelligence as possible. Those skeptical of any connection claim that any evidence of a relationship must have been "cherry picked" from much larger piles of existing intelligence that makes these Iraq-al Qaeda links less compelling. Let's see it all, or as much of it as can be disclosed without compromising sources and methods.

Among the most important items to be declassified: the Iraq Survey Group documents discussed above; any and all reporting and documentation--including photographs--pertaining to Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi and alleged Saddam Fedayeen officer present at the September 11 planning meeting; interview transcripts with top Iraqi intelligence officers, al Qaeda terrorists, and leaders of al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam; documents recovered in postwar Iraq indicating that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who has admitted mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was given safe haven and financial support by the Iraqi regime upon returning to Baghdad two weeks after the attack; any and all reporting and documentation--including photographs--related to Mohammed Atta's visits to Prague; portions of the debriefings of Faruq Hijazi, former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence, who met personally with bin Laden at least twice, and an evaluation of his credibility.

It is of course important for the Bush administration and CIA director George Tenet to back up their assertions of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Similarly, declassifying intelligence from the 1990s might shed light on why top Clinton officials were adamant about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection in Sudan and why the Clinton Justice Department included the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship in its 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden. More specifically, what intelligence did Richard Clarke see that allowed him to tell the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had provided a chemical weapons precursor to the al Qaeda-linked al Shifa facility in Sudan? What would compel former secretary of defense William Cohen to tell the September 11 Commission, under oath, that an executive from the al Qaeda-linked plant "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX [nerve gas] program"? And why did Thomas Pickering, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, tell reporters, "We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program"? Other Clinton administration figures, including a "senior intelligence official" who briefed reporters on background, cited telephone intercepts between a plant manager and Emad al Ani, the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program.

We have seen important elements of the pre-September 11 intelligence available to the Bush administration; it's time for the American public to see more of the intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda from the 1990s, especially the reporting about the August 1998 attacks in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S. counterstrikes two weeks later.

Until this material is declassified, there will be gaps in our knowledge. Indeed, even after the full record is made public, some uncertainties will no doubt remain.

The connection between Saddam and al Qaeda isn't one of them.


Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 25, 2005, 17:58:04
Thank you, Mr Muskrat!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 18:34:16
Muskrat

"The Shakir story is perhaps the government's strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11. It is far from conclusive; conceivably there were two Ahmed Hikmat Shakirs. And in itself, the evidence does not show that Saddam Hussein personally had foreknowledge of the attacks. Still--like the long, on-again-off-again relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda--it cannot be dismissed." 

Speculation is not proof in any court.  Again even if there was the relationship, which there may well have been, where are WMD that they went after.

Majoor

You still never answered my questions as to France and Germany seeing Iraq as a threat and failing to back the US in the war?

Wesley

Really my arguments lack fact?

Was it the press that lied about the Arms for hostages scandal?
Did they find a huge cache of WMD and forget to report it?

Yes America dropped the bomb and it was the right thing to do at the time.
That list was in response to the one from the Majoor and if you read it, I said let he without sin cast the first stone.

Do i think the US is a bad nation or painted them in a negative way no.  I think that thye have been exercising alot of muscle international without alot of world opinion.  You want people to stop hating you then stop pissing the world off.  I agree sometimes they have to act and act fast world opinion be dammed and the two bombs are a perfect example of that.  But having the might does not make everything you do right. 

You say I am a leftest, I doubt it and i would love for you to show me how i appear that way.  All I was saying with my post was that if you want to have the world on your side you have to show the world that you are right.  Proof is required in order to make that happen (speculation is not proof). 

Do you think i want Iran to develope nuclear weapons?  Canada would be just as guilty as any other nation if that was to happen.  We sold the reactors to Pakistian who in turn helped Iran. 
 
No i don't think Canada would come away unscathed and i find it fairly embarising that there is not much we can do about it militarily.  We lack the backbone in our duly elected government to change any of these problems and we continue to put that problem back in power.

As for the warm beer and funny brownie, not called for.  I drink cold beer and suffer at night due to a lack of hockey.

because profile is empty that makes my opinion count for less?

48

This one you have to explain to me.

"Ok that's enough.  Nobody wants to hear your conspiracy theorie reitarated again.  It's been debated to death multiple times, and this thread isn't the place for it."

How does what i asked you go near a consipiracy theory?










Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 25, 2005, 18:56:53
You believe Iraq to be a sovereign nation right now?   Not a puppet government of the Americans?  

Conspiracy theory.

But having the might does not make everything you do right.

"having the might" also doesn't automaticaly make every action wrong.

All I was saying with my post was that if you want to have the world on your side you have to show the world that you are right. Proof is required in order to make that happen (speculation is not proof).

I see.  So who's side are YOU on exactly?  If you're against the US action in Iraq, I take it you're on Sadams side?  If so, would you please provide me with a link to the exhaustive and detailed "proof" which Sadam showed you in order to bring you to his side?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 19:07:25
I am on the side of the colation. :cdn:  I beilve Sadam  >:D had to go.  There is no doubt in my mind that the things he did were illegal and border on insane.  But i don't think that the government in place would last if the US pulled out. Making it a puppet to US demands. Things may change after the election.

And you are right having the might doesn't make it automatically wrong it just makes you carry a bigger burnden of proof when you do things.  And you are held to a higher standard.  Especially when you go things alone, or with the "Colation of the willing"

The world holds the US to a higher standard then alot of the third world countries and backwards dictatorships that they tend to deal with.  The reason for this is the US has assumed this role.  If they want the lime light they should have to carry the responsiblitiy with it.

I have no doubt that Iran is up to no good.  None.  But you have to know by fact before you can just assume it.  That is all i am saying.  Saying you have proof and then finding nothing does not help your credibilty on the world stage.

That is all, other then that i like to play a little devils advocate to make blood boil.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: muskrat89 on January 25, 2005, 19:17:16
Quote
Speculation is not proof in any court.  Again even if there was the relationship, which there may well have been, where are WMD that they went after.

I didn't post it as proof. I do however feel that the information that I posted was far more compelling, researched, and believable than the "Wizard of Oz" posting simply that "there were NO links" on an internet forum....
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 25, 2005, 19:26:35
You hold the US to a higher standard?   In the Iraq conflict, on one side you have a democraticaly elected president in charge of a nation which gives almost unlimited rights and freedoms to it's citizens.   On the other side you have a dicatorial regime which executes the citizens of it's nation at the whim of those in power.   Yet which country is compared by the left wing to the Nazi regime, and which president is compared to Hitler?   The world doesn't just hold the US to a "higher standard", those edumacated individuals of "higher moral integrity" hold the US to an impossible standard.   Nothing the US does will ever be good enough, not because of lack of evidence or positive results, but simply because they're an easy target to pick on, and the ones most often in the limelight.   You see examples of that attitude everywhere in our world, like for example the entertainment industry.   Nobody wants to see movies stars or other famous people having stable marriages and normal lives.   People want to see sex, drugs, violence, divorces, suicides....the more scandal the better.   Same goes for politics.   Eliminating possible threats and removing dictators lacks sex-appeal.   It's much more fun to speculate bout corporate ambitions being the driving force behind invasions to seize wealth and oppress the little people, or secret "clandestine" government operatives flying planes by remote control into the WTC in order to justify a christian crusade or American imperial ambitions.   See how much sexier all those phrases sound?   It's all about image.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: MagieNoire on January 25, 2005, 19:41:06
Wizard:

Some excellent points regarding the US, however, one of your examples is outdated and doesn't include important context info.

The US was justified in using nuclear weapons against Japan because: a- the alternative (mainland invasion of Japan) would have caused more casualties than the 2 nukes did; and b- they were in a state of TOTAL WAR with Japan.

And as Majoor pointed out, that was 60 years ago.





What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.   :skull:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Voltigeur on January 25, 2005, 19:59:38
Well gentlemen, first is first, I support the US foreign policy for the simple reason that in Roman times, you had to support Rome.... but don't forget, Iran, Irak, Syria and so on... they are like the Persia of Roman times. Rome never successfully controlled the Middle East... It's not the place of the westerners.... We messed up everytime we have been there.... The US are swimming in their own mess.... They supported Saddam, they supported the Shah of Iran... They caused a lot of suffering amongst the people there by putting and supporting dictators because they knew it was the only way to maintain an economic influence over the area. Now, since Saddam turned his back on them in 1991 and the Shah of Iran was dismissed in 1979, the whole area was not under their influence anymore.... Yes, they went into Irak and they will go in Iran because we are not talking about freedom for those people, we are talking about maintaing USA superpower for the next century... it's simply a long term vision which people at the pentagon have been working on for years... Oil is necessary for the tanks, the ships, the jets and every car owner in America.... They are in the Middle East because it was just a matter of time before China put his nose there! Anyway, those who are listening Imagine of John lennon and dreaming about a world of peace and freedom, I strongly suggest you start your homemade weed plant cause you're gonna need it... especially when there will be no food in your cooler. For the rest who are wake up, be a roman of your time and protect your way of life by defending the US foreign policy cause like it or not... the world is a big competition with winners and losers... chose your side carefully.
Good bless all our brothers and sisters of the United States Armed Forces.


Better to live one day as a lion than one hundred years as a lamb - Benito Mussolini
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on January 25, 2005, 20:13:17
be a roman of your time and protect your way of life by defending the US foreign policy cause like it or not... the world is a big competition with winners and losers... chose your side carefully.

Yes, because we all know the only way to protect your way of life is to invade and slaughter all those who don't abide by it!  ::)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Steve on January 25, 2005, 20:29:13
Listen to some of you people .. "who's side are you on?"

Do you really think anything is so perfectly black and white?

If I do not agree with Bush's policies, does that now make me a terrorist?

I will not get involved with what was right and wrong regarding this whole issue, because there are some rights and some wrongs and it goes so deep until it's murky and convuluted beyond recognition.

But I will say that it is a primitive state of mind to think that something either "is" or "is not" .. I forget who said that, but it is true.

Disagreeing with Iraq does not make you on Saddams side.

Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Hermann Goering said that. Despite his affiliations, he was correct. But I guess someone will now denounce me as being on the Nazi's side for using a quote of theirs, right?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 25, 2005, 20:40:50
No, I'll denounce you for suggesting that such a quote applies in all circumstances.

Disagreeing with Iraq deffinitely doesn't put you on Sadams side, it puts you on the US side ;D

If you're talking about opposing the US led war in Iraq, then it all depends on your reasons.  You could be opposed to it because you don't think the US has any business doing anything outside it's own borders.  In that case you're an isolationist, and a fool.  Maybe you disagree with it because you think that the US was motivated by Oil.  In that case you're a conspiracy theorist, and still a fool.  Or maybe you're opposed to it because you beleive the US forces are doing more harm than Sadam ever did.  In that case, you're a revisionist, and STILL a fool.  And lastly, you could be opposed to it because you're biased against any US actions.  In which case you're a liberal, and the biggest fool of all :)

I don't know, maybe I skipped a possible motivation there, feel free to enlighten me on your beleifs.  Just try to avoid using quotes.  I find that those who can't think for themselves are most likely to quote the irrelevant statements of others.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Voltigeur on January 25, 2005, 20:44:34
I see your point Steve... don't worry about the quote, it's true even though it's coming from fatty Goering. You are right to say everything is not balck and white... In fact, the whole thing is more kind of a muddy gray than anything else but sometimes you got to take a side. Hell, I dont agrree with a lot of things that Bush is saying. A lot of people on Canada are screaming against the USA and their policy... They refuse to admit to the whole syaing... It's ugly but it's necessary! Why, I will tell you. Canada is a little sweetheart country. It's surrounded by three oceans and a big brother in the south to provide for everything. There has been no war and no major disaster on its soil for more than 300 years. People are fat and they enjoy more freedom than anywhere else in the world. In that way, They are ignorant cause they simply don't know why they have such nice standards of living... If it was not for the States, Canada would be the ***** of everybody. Yes, US foreign policy is questionable at some extent but as long as you have electricity, food, shelters and a future for your family and your children... dont scream at them too hard... The USA don't owe us anything, we owe them for everything.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 20:56:35
I didn't post it as proof. I do however feel that the information that I posted was far more compelling, researched, and believable than the "Wizard of Oz" posting simply that "there were NO links" on an internet forum....

True

And i never meant to for it to be taken as such.   A post is an opinion unless backed by a quote or other form of relevant material.   Correct? And all i gave was my opinion if i had hard evidence of these links i would have put them there.   The following are from USA today and the Washington Post in that order.

The prewar intelligence has been called into question both nationally and abroad because of the military's inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Also, some evidence cited by the Bush administration has been discredited, including documents on supposed approaches to obtain uranium in Africa, which turned out to be forgeries.

At a news conference in Washington, Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said Friday the failure to find the weapons was a defeat for her government, which strongly supported the war.

"There is a pervasive concern when and how we will find them," Palacio said. But she said she was relaxed about the weapons search.

Republicans say there is little doubt the weapons existed and accuse Democrats of questioning the intelligence and its use for political reasons. They defeated three attempts by House Democrats this week to expand the weapons inquiries as part of an intelligence bill approved early Friday.

On Thursday, 24 House Democrats announced that would seek an independent commission to examine the Iraq intelligence. They say they want to know whether intelligence was inaccurate or whether the administration presented a distorted interpretation of the intelligence to make the case for war.

Democrats have also questioned whether the Bush administration overstated Iraqi links to al-Qaeda. A recently completed draft report by a U.N. terrorism committee on efforts to stop al-Qaeda operations does not mention Iraq. The committee has seen no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, said its chief investigator Michael Chandler.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Friday that the committee's mandate did not include examining Iraqi links to al-Qaeda. He said the committee lacked the expertise to assess any links.

In addition to the intelligence issue, Democrats and some Republicans have criticized President Bush for not speaking publicly of the long-term costs and U.S. troop commitments that will be needed in Iraq.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, urged Bush to ask for help policing Iraq from the NATO military alliance and its member states.

"I implore the president to kind of get over his feelings about the Europeans, and the French and the Germans in particular, and seek their assistance because I believe they are ready to assist. They need to be asked," Biden said.

In an interview with NPR's "All Things Considered," Secretary of State Colin Powell said "a large presence of troops" will be needed for months to stabilize the country, improve security and eliminate remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and his Baathist Party.

"I can't be more precise than that, because we don't know," he said.

And now the post

Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page A01

In a nationally televised address last October in which he sought to rally congressional support for a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, President Bush declared that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States by outlining what he said was evidence pointing to its ongoing ties with al Qaeda.

A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within the Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed a far less clear picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented by the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and congressional sources who have read the report.

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired intelligence panel last fall, asked the CIA for more information. (Ellen Ozier -- Reuters)   

We want to give you the opportunity to show firsthand what it is like to live and work in Iraq.
 
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which represented the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community, contained cautionary language about Iraq's connections with al Qaeda and warnings about the reliability of conflicting reports by Iraqi defectors and captured al Qaeda members about the ties, the sources said.

"There has always been an internal argument within the intelligence community about the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," said a senior intelligence official, who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity. "The NIE had alternative views."

Similar questions have been raised about Bush's statement in his State of the Union address last January that the British had reported Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa, which the president used to back up his assertion that Iraq had a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. In that case, senior U.S. officials said, the CIA 10 months earlier sent a former senior American diplomat to visit Niger who reported that country's officials said they had not made any agreement to aid the sale of uranium to Iraq and indicated documents alleging that were forged. Details of that CIA Niger inquiry were not shared with the White House, although the agency succeeded in deleting that allegation from other administration statements.

Bush, in his speech in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, made his case that Iraq had ties with al Qaeda, by mentioning several items such as high-level contacts that "go back a decade." He said "we've learned" that Iraq trained al Qaeda members "in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Although the president offered essentially circumstantial evidence, his remarks contained none of the caveats about the reliability of this information as contained in the national intelligence document, sources said.

The presidential address crystallized the assertion that had been made by senior administration officials for months that the combination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and a terrorist organization, such as al Qaeda, committed to attacking the United States posed a grave and imminent threat. Within four days, the House and Senate overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution granting the president authority to go to war.

The handling of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda has come under increased scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with some leading Democrats charging that the administration exaggerated the case against Hussein by publicizing intelligence that supported its policy and keeping contradictory information under wraps. The House intelligence committee opened a closed-door review into the matter last week; its Senate counterpart is planning similar hearings. The Senate Armed Services Committee is also investigating the issue.

Bush has defended his handling of intelligence before the war, calling his critics "revisionist historians."

"The intelligence services of many nations concluded that he had illegal weapons, and the regime refused to provide evidence they had been destroyed," Bush said in his weekly radio address yesterday. He vowed to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."

Questions about the reliability of the intelligence that Bush cited in his Cincinnati address were raised shortly after the speech by ranking Democrats on the Senate intelligence and armed services panel. They pressed the CIA to declassify more of the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate than a 28-page "white paper" on Iraq distributed on Capitol Hill on Oct. 4.

In one of the more notable statements made by the president, Bush said that "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," and added: "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

Bush did not indicate that the consensus of U.S. intelligence analysts was that Hussein would launch a terrorist attack against the United States only if he thought he could not stop the United States from invading Iraq. The intelligence report had said that the Iraqi president might decide to give chemical or biological agents to terrorists, such as al Qaeda, for use against the United States only as a "last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." And it said this would be an "extreme step" by Hussein.

These conclusions in the report were contained in a letter CIA Director George J. Tenet sent to Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then the chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, the day of Bush's speech.

While Bush also spoke of Iraq and al Qaeda having had "high-level contacts that go back a decade," the president did not say -- as the classified intelligence report asserted -- that the contacts occurred in the early 1990s, when Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader, was living in Sudan and his organization was in its infancy. At the time, the report said, bin Laden and Hussein were united primarily by their common hostility to the Saudi Arabian monarchy, according to sources. Bush also did not refer to the report's conclusion that those early contacts had not led to any known continuing high-level relationships between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda, the sources said.

The president said some al Qaeda leaders had fled Afghanistan to Iraq and referred to one "very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." It was a reference to Abu Mussab Zarqawi, a Jordanian. U.S. intelligence already had concluded that Zarqawi was not an al Qaeda member but the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al Qaeda adherents, the sources said.

As for Bush's claim that Iraq had trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and use of poisons and deadly gases, sources with knowledge of the classified intelligence estimate said the report's conclusion was that this had not been satisfactorily confirmed.

"We've learned," Bush said in his speech, "that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." But the president did not mention that when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had referred the previous month to such training, she had said the source was al Qaeda captives.

The CIA briefed congressional committees about the National Intelligence Estimate but did not deliver the classified version until the evening of Oct. 1, just before a Senate intelligence committee hearing the next day, congressional sources said. At that closed-door session, several senators raised questions about qualifying statements made in the report, which was circulated only among senior national security officials.

On Oct. 4, three days before the president's speech, at the urging of members of Congress, the CIA released its declassified excerpts from the intelligence report as a "white paper" on Iraq's weapons programs and al Qaeda links. The members wanted a public document to which they could refer during floor debates on the Iraq war resolution.

The white paper did contain passages that hinted at the intelligence community's lack of certitude about Iraq's weapons programs and al Qaeda ties, but it omitted some qualifiers contained in the classified version. It also did not include qualifiers made at the Oct. 2 hearing by an unidentified senior intelligence official who, during his testimony, challenged some of the administration's public statements on Iraq.

"Senator Graham felt that they declassified only things that supported their position and left classified what did not support that policy," said Bob Filippone, Graham's deputy chief of staff. Graham, now a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, opposed the war resolution.

When the white paper appeared, Graham and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), an intelligence panel member and at that time chairman of the Armed Services Committee, asked to have additional portions of the intelligence estimate as well as portions of the testimony at the Oct. 2 hearing made public.

On the day of Bush's speech, Tenet sent a letter to Graham with some of the additional information. The letter drew attention because it seemed to contradict Bush's statements that Hussein would give weapons to al Qaeda.

Tenet released a statement on Oct. 8 that said, "There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed by the president in his speech." He went on to say, however, that the chance that the Iraqi leader would turn weapons over to al Qaeda was "low, in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses" weapons of mass destruction.

On Oct. 9, the CIA sent a letter to Graham and Levin informing them that no additional portions of the intelligence report would be made public.  There is a little of what i found. As far as the connection to Al Qaeda was concerend.   I don't know if i call it proof but it is better then "opinion in post by OZ"    ;D

It is about image i agree why do you think the press gets to ride with the army now?   To that same statement, though the US is the biggest kid on the block no doubt or argument right?   Do you not think that having that kind of power does not come with some sort of responsiblitiy deserved or not or wanted or not it does.   

And of course they are an easy target, it is like playing king of the hill, the one on top has to work very hard to stay there cause everybody is gunning for them.



Voltigeur i hope you do not think i am on the side of Iran.   I am not.

MagieNoire

Sure it can, the concept of total war allows for it.   The death toll and colllateral damage to the main island alone would have far exceeded that of the two nuclear weapons droped on them.   

It is nice to see that this fourm is not all verbal squabiling.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Steve on January 25, 2005, 21:10:40
No, I'll denounce you for suggesting that such a quote applies in all circumstances.

Funny, I don't recall saying that the quote applied in all circumstances. I thought it was quite clear that I was using that quote in this instance.

Disagreeing with Iraq deffinitely doesn't put you on Sadams side, it puts you on the US side ;D

I'm not on the US side, or any side. Is your manner of thinking so confined and narrow so that everyone must be on a certain "side" Cake and pie may be evenly divided but things are not so simple in real life.

If you're talking about opposing the US led war in Iraq, then it all depends on your reasons.   You could be opposed to it because you don't think the US has any business doing anything outside it's own borders.   In that case you're an isolationist, and a fool.   Maybe you disagree with it because you think that the US was motivated by Oil.   In that case you're a conspiracy theorist, and still a fool.   Or maybe you're opposed to it because you beleive the US forces are doing more harm than Sadam ever did.   In that case, you're a revisionist, and STILL a fool.   And lastly, you could be opposed to it because you're biased against any US actions.   In which case you're a liberal, and the biggest fool of all :)

Well, isn't that convenient that any manner of said thinking makes me automatically a fool? Maybe I think someone may be a fool for not thinking it's about oil? Maybe I could say you're a fool for believing that democracy will take hold in Iraq? I don't think any of these things but it's quite easy to simply go around calling everyone a fool for thinking the way they do.

On top of that, why should anyone care if you think they are a fool? You have your own beliefs and reasons for believing them, why call someone a fool for not sharing that view? Is it because you're an ultra right wing nutjob? If so, you're a fool. Is it because you are a Republican and anyone that talks down about the US hates America and freedom? If so, you're a bigger fool. Perhaps you are an evil communist who wants everyone to tow the party line? If so you are the biggest fool of all :)

See, anyone can pull this infantile method of attack.

I don't know, maybe I skipped a possible motivation there, feel free to enlighten me on your beleifs.   Just try to avoid using quotes.   I find that those who can't think for themselves are most likely to quote the irrelevant statements of others.

Or it just may be that I found his quote better able to sum up what I am feeling/thinking better than I could express it. And by the way, it was hardly irrelevent.

As for my own beliefs; you know what they are? Nothing. I consider this whole Iraq debacle just another American war. I don't like it, and I don't particularly believe in it or like George Bush. And that is it. Sure I follow the news and recent developments because I am curious about world events, but aside from what I stated, I don't give it anymore thought than that. I have better things to do than waste my time with politics and Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative/etc bull****.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on January 25, 2005, 21:13:24
"Maybe you disagree with it because you think that the US was motivated by Oil.  In that case you're a conspiracy theorist, and still a fool."

Wait a few years.  The only fool will be the person who thinks the War in Iraq had nothing to do with oil.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Voltigeur on January 25, 2005, 21:14:42
LOL I love that quote by the regretted General George S. Patton... It says a lot about the kind of man he was... a pure and steeled soldier. Well, this is a deep topic and I took a kind interest to read your newspaper references. Personnaly, what I retain from Irak and the whole US foreign policy in the Middle East is the following :

Of course there were no WMD
It's not to free Iraki from Saddam (They supported Saddam for a long time and they give a damn about atrocities)
Oil is one of the main reason
The main reason is   to extent to shere of influence of the USA, politically, militarilly and economically in the Middle East.
Oil is one of the major factor because it's going to be a scare resource in less than 50 years
China is on its way to become a superpower... the move in the middle East is linked to that just like this missile shield we are talking about...
The US are talking about Irak, Iran and North Korea... its just a way to talk to China saying : "I'm still running the show"
To sum, the whole show is about economic competition... Freedom is always the perfect cover
Iraki are not more important to the US than Sudanese, or other dying people are. They care about the geostrategic position and the resources.
Am I going to blame them... No! In Roman times, I would have been with Rome and today Im with the US... Who knows, maybe someday we are going to be those people that the chinese are sorry for on TV...LOL


Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Steve on January 25, 2005, 21:18:49
Voltigeur you are clearly a leftist liberal fool. Why don't you just run up and hug Osama, you freedom hating terrorist.

(joking btw).
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on January 25, 2005, 21:20:51
"In Roman times, I would have been with Rome and today Im with the US"

The world is a difference place almost two thousands years later.   You can be a Canadian and not be with the US and not fear being conquered in an epic battle on the plains of Saskatchewan.   Siding with someone out of either fear of their power or an inferiority complex is a poor methodology for deriving a position on anything.   If you were surrounded by ten enemy soldiers would you merely cave and side with them out of the sheer domination they held over the situation?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Voltigeur on January 25, 2005, 21:21:34
LOL Steve... Damn, if I am a leftist liberal, I wonder what you are... maybe green party
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 25, 2005, 21:23:41
As for my own beliefs; you know what they are? Nothing. I consider this whole Iraq debacle just another American war. I don't like it, and I don't particularly believe in it or like George Bush. And that is it. Sure I follow the news and recent developments because I am curious about world events, but aside from what I stated, I don't give it anymore thought than that. I have better things to do than waste my time with politics and Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative/etc bull****.

That tells me all I need to know.  You're not opposed to the war because of any logical reasoning, you're opposed to it because it's "just another American war".  So how can you expect me not to think of you as a fool?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on January 25, 2005, 21:28:12
What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.   :skull:

What about the attrocities the Japanese committed against Allied PoWs? Australian, American, British and even Canadians. This also included civilian 'citizens'   including men, women and young children.

What about the insane brutal treatment of the Chinese and Koreans under Japanese rule, not forgetting the other Asian nations taken during their 'empire' expansion.

Even today the Japanese government fails to even acknowledge or even unofficially say 'sorry' for what they had done not so long ago.

Shame on them. So before you go smearing shyte on what your great nation accomplished to end a nasty and brutal World War, you had better take a long look at what Japan had done prior to the 6th and 9th of August 1945 even going back to the 1930s with their invasion of Manchuria.

At least the German government acknowledges their tarnished Nazi past, and has publically apologised time and time again. Now thats a humble and gallant thing to do, and something to be admired, and the first steps in the long process of forgivness.

Wes

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Voltigeur on January 25, 2005, 21:29:38
CiviU, my man... the world isn't so different than two thousand years ago... technology has improved all right but the deep human principles and vlaues are the same... Their is a lot of parallels you can make with the US and the Roman empire... Just pay attention to details and read between the lines... It's pretty the same ball game. All the US want is to maintain its superpower and economic control to PRESERVE THE WAY OF LIFE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. All the Roman empire did starting around 150 AD was to maintain its border and economic control to PRESERVE THE WAY OF LIFE OF ROMAN PEOPLE. And to answer your question, since I'm now a cop and a former Infantryman, you should know that I won't switch side out of fear... I am more American than Canadian in my way of thinking... it's just the way it is and I personnaly think it will be the time soon for a North American Federation... doyou really think that 30 milions canadians should stand up to 240 millions American when they speak the same language and share the same values... well almost the same values right Moose!

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on January 25, 2005, 21:31:16
Stating that Canadians and Americans share the same values is a gross misunderstanding of the nation we live in.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 25, 2005, 21:35:28
Stating that Canadians and Americans share the same values is a gross misunderstanding of the nation we live in.

The only difference between us and the yanks is that we're more socialist, and we accept the monarchy.   Otherwise we may as well be part of the US.

If your opinion differs, you may wish to qualify it with some examples.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Steve on January 25, 2005, 21:38:06
That tells me all I need to know.   You're not opposed to the war because of any logical reasoning, you're opposed to it because it's "just another American war".   So how can you expect me not to think of you as a fool?

I have my own reasons - none of which I will ever care to explain to you. I don't care the slightest if you think I am a fool. The feeling is mutual, but it doesn't matter whatsoever.

I'm through discussing this with you.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Voltigeur on January 25, 2005, 21:40:19
Well CIviU, thats your opinion and I respect it... However, you are the first who will bring your kids to McDonald, go to see an Hollywood movie and have a family life just like the normal American way... You will want to have a big car and a big house just like the American way and send your kids in a good school so they can have a good life just like the American way... You think canadian are special... that they are diferent and so on and so on... Damn, have you ever been in the States or talked to some moderate republican or open democrat... you would see there is difference in your way of thinking except the moose head in the back of your head. Its pretty much the same. Don't you forget that you all descend from the same ancestors. Most people in Canada are just the rest of some loyalists who fled the American Revolution... Mother Elizabeth don't give a damn about you since a long time ago so you should look south and take a good look at your Uncle Sam... I'm sure you'll find family traits.



To be or Not to be - WS
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Voltigeur on January 25, 2005, 21:44:22
Thanks 48Highlanders... always nice to have some Scotts warriors on my side
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Voltigeur on January 25, 2005, 21:47:19
Anyway, lets just sell Canada top the States so I can finally join the few, the good, THE MARINES
Semper Fi
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on January 25, 2005, 21:54:04
Well if you want to compare American and Canadian values, look at the positions taken by numerous American states prior to the past election in voting against same sex marriage rights.  Presently seven provinces and one territory endorse these rights for same sex couples. 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on January 25, 2005, 21:55:39
"Mother Elizabeth don't give a darn about you since a long time ago so you should look south and take a good look at your Uncle Sam"

I don't remember that as part of my Canadian Forces swearing in ceremony.  Must have missed that passage...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Steve on January 25, 2005, 21:56:26
Unfortunately I've contributed to this .. but this thread is getting pretty far from what it was meant to be .. I was really enjoynig hearing the debate about the US and Iran and such before ... all this happened. So does anyone else have anymore to say about Iran..?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Voltigeur on January 25, 2005, 22:00:48
Let Iran with Iranians, Irak with Irakis but let the Americans invade Canada. LOL
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 25, 2005, 22:06:18
Well if you want to compare American and Canadian values, look at the positions taken by numerous American states prior to the past election in voting against same sex marriage rights.   Presently seven provinces and one territory endorse these rights for same sex couples.  


But what percentage of the people actually support it?

Canada:
Opposed:   44%
In favour:   53%

US:
Opposed:   55%
In favour:   30%

An 11% difference in opposition really isn't anything to get overly excited about.   The main difference is that only 3% of Canadians don't bother having or voicing an opinion as opposed to 23% of Americans.

How about looking at US opinions on gay "civil unions"?   Same concept, different name:

Opposed:   51%
In favour:   46%

Let's try not to make the Americans out to be homophobic hicks, eh?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: muskrat89 on January 25, 2005, 22:12:23
Quote
Let's try not to make the Americans out to be homophobic hicks, eh?

Especially since some of us Canadians have lived here for a dozen or more years, and can speak from experience, as opposed to something we've heard or read somewhere...   ::)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on January 26, 2005, 01:27:02
"Especially since some of us Canadians have lived here for a dozen or more years, and can speak from experience, as opposed to something we've heard or read somewhere..."

What is this referring to?  I've lived in Canada more than a dozen years.  And last time I checked, reading up on things was hardly a negative means of informing yourself...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on January 26, 2005, 01:27:44
But what percentage of the people actually support it?

Canada:
Opposed:  44%
In favour:  53%

US:
Opposed:  55%
In favour:  30%

An 11% difference in opposition really isn't anything to get overly excited about.  The main difference is that only 3% of Canadians don't bother having or voicing an opinion as opposed to 23% of Americans.

How about looking at US opinions on gay "civil unions"?  Same concept, different name:

Opposed:  51%
In favour:  46%



Where does this data come from?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 26, 2005, 01:48:26
Quote
Majoor

You still never answered my questions as to France and Germany seeing Iraq as a threat and failing to back the US in the war?

The "Oil for Food" scandal sums it up very nicely: Iraq already had billions of dollars worth of business with France and Germany, and were skimming the "Oil for Food" money (about $21 billion worth) and using it to bribe French, German and apparently Chinese government officials to put up a huge diplomatic fight against any effort to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq. France and Germany were (and still are) not willing to accept a Democratic Iraqi government reneging on debts racked up during the Ba'athist dictatorship, nor million and billion dollar contracts negotiated with Saddam being repudiated.

Really, all this stuff is open source, you can find it by reading various newspapers, magazines, internet Blogs and so on. I have given you quite enough material to begin doing the basic research and finding the answers on your own.

Since facts don't seem to be working, lets go to a story:

You have just taken over the "Iraqi variety store", the previous owner having been arrested and jailed for various crimes. The store is a mess. The slushy machine is missing, and no one can say where it is despite it being one of the biggest attractions of the store during the 1980's and early 1990s. 1/3 of your employees are surly and resentful, having lost their management positions when the former owner was arrested. Despite your best efforts, getting back to business is difficult. Every time the police patrol leaves (usually with a petty criminal in the back seat), bikers or native cigarette smugglers are harrassing your customers, shoplifting or throwing a brick through your window. You have even caught some employees  helping these thugs.

You also are aware that the biker chicks hang out at the "Syria strip bar" at one end of the street, and the "Iran pizza" franchise at the other end of the street is a well known native hangout, and they seem to be selling slushies as well....

You have enough on your plate as it is, your new security guard needs to be trained, store policies enforced, but there is a good sign; during the last municipal election, the new police chief has promised to maintain the patrols in your neighbourhood (even with the sudden flooding downtown), and although you can't quite prove the connection between the roving gangs of thugs and the two stores at either end of the street, lately there has been a van parked in an alley most days and nights.....
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 26, 2005, 01:53:00
Where does this data come from?

I used 4 different sites to look up and double-check the statistics.  It took me all of 5 minutes on google.  Try looking it up for yourself, and if you really can't figure it out I'll go find the links.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Infanteer on January 26, 2005, 04:39:09
Wow, alot of arguments all over the place on this one, here's my crack at it:

1) Canadians and Americans:   Try going to a city in the United States and then going to a city in any other country, especially one in the non-developed world.   You will see that except for a few cosmetic issues and some different historical inputs, Americans and Canadians are largely the same - we both get up in the morning, eat cereal, drive the sport utility to work and pay lots for gas, work infront of a computer, pick up the kids from judo/hockey/scouts, eat a steak, watch the evening news, go to bed, and repeat.

2) Whoever thinks that US/Western involvement in the Middle East isn't about oil is a fool.   However, whoever thinks that we shouldn't be involved in the Middle East because of oil is also a fool.   Until our economies can move away from oil-dependency (which is probably the best long-term strategy to dealing with the region - we can simply leave the sand-dunes to the mullahs and dictators) we have every reason to take a personal interest into how things unfold there.   If you still believe that we shouldn't be in the Middle East for oil, please get rid of 90% of your cozy belongings (including the computer you're using to read this) and give all your money away...better yet, send it all to me.

3) It's obvious that many people don't agree with a very assertive/aggressive US-led Coalition policy in the Middle East?   I've taken the time to argue extensively on why I feel it is in general a good strategy, but I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in".   Please, I'm all ears - give me something to chew on and think about instead of one-off comments on the morality of Iraq (which is merely an means to an end) or how Americans are imperialist nazis.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: muskrat89 on January 26, 2005, 10:32:47
CivU - 48Highlander said
Quote
Let's try not to make the Americans out to be homophobic hicks, eh?

He said this because there are a LOT of people on this board that  make unsubstantiated claims, generalizations, etc., about people in the US. Based, typically, on something they have heard or read somewhere, as opposed to actual experience LIVING in the United States.

There are several members of this board who are either American, or Canadians living in the US. Sometimes it helps to look at profiles to see who you are speaking with. Generally, people with credibility put enough info in their profile to get the jist of who they are and what they have done.

I have lived in the US for about 15 years. Thus far, I have chosen NOT to become a US Citizen. When some of the people on this board try and spout off with some authority about life in the US, people in the US, etc., it is almost laughable.

It would be like me stating with some conviction, what the people in New Zealand are like...or think... or do...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Michael Dorosh on January 26, 2005, 11:23:42
What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.  :skull:

It prevented over 1,000,000 Allied casualties, and brought about the end to a Japanese regime that was notable for murdering prisoners of war, torturing civilians, and waging aggressive war.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: radiohead on January 26, 2005, 11:32:12
"What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.   


I'ld have to disagree, the 2 atom bombs ended the war quickly and they were far fewer Japanese citizenx killed in those tow bombing raid that in the fire bomb raids the US was doing before that.  If anything was un-justied it was the fire bombing.  Raids totally designed to cause as fire as possible; very nasty and if you think the naplam used in Vietman was bad.... this was far more deadly.

It does bring up an interesting debate, as both sides did what would now be called war crimes.  Only the allies won and so our's are some how justied because of that.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Rushrules on January 26, 2005, 13:49:03
Radiohead,

To further substantiate that one, look up the firebombing of Dresden, where an estimated 100,000 people were killed, and any fleeing civilians were shot at by Allied warplanes.   

Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't attacked because Japan was a threat (the war was mostly over then), but to tell the Soviets that this will happen to them.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 26, 2005, 13:57:13
Individuals and nations are morally justified to take up arms or use force to protect themselves.

Imperial Japan was an aggressor state since the mid 1930s, and a quick search on the Internet will bring up pages of stomach turning activities sanctioned by the Imperial government and carried out by the Imperial Army. All this happened BEFORE they launched a surprise attack against the United States.

Given that history, is it creditable to imagine that the Japanese Empire would have ceased these practices on its own accord?

Flash forward to the period since 1979. Iraq uses terrorism against diplomats, sponsors terrorist groups in the Middle East (some of which, like Hamas and Hezbollah have branch offices in Canada and global reach), uses barbaric practices like human wave attacks of children to fight the Iraqis and treats its own citizens like slaves. They train, support and sponsor the Jihadis, and are openly seeking nuclear weapons to impose their will on their neighbours (what other use do nuclear weapons have).

Given this history, does it seem creditable that Iran will cease these practices on their own?

If the United States can achieve their aims through diplomacy, trade and support of the pro democracy movement in Iraq, then that would be wonderful, and I think this would be everyone's preffered option. We need to ask what we must do should these efforts fail, and military solutions ranging from a "head-shot" to a full scale invasion need to be investigated and war gamed in order for the Administration to understand the range of options available.

If the Iranians are not comfortable with this sort of American activity, they should ask themselves what is causing this activity after so many years of neglect?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 26, 2005, 14:49:18
Majoor i think you meant to say Iran in this Para

"Flash forward to the period since 1979. Iraq uses terrorism against diplomats, sponsors terrorist groups in the Middle East (some of which, like Hamas and Hezbollah have branch offices in Canada and global reach), uses barbaric practices like human wave attacks of children to fight the Iraqis and treats its own citizens like slaves. They train, support and sponsor the Jihadis, and are openly seeking nuclear weapons to impose their will on their neighbours (what other use do nuclear weapons have)."

No one is disputs that change is necessary (well i don't otheres may) It is how and why that change is to come about that we have been debating over.

Radiohead,

To further substantiate that one, look up the firebombing of Dresden, where an estimated 100,000 people were killed, and any fleeing civilians were shot at by Allied warplanes.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't attacked because Japan was a threat (the war was mostly over then), but to tell the Soviets that this will happen to them.

Your kidding right?

The war was almost over?  Some small islands around Japan where troops were isolated and cut off did not fully surreneder until the 80's when the troops were found.

They would have fought to the death hence the Samrari way. Or kamakazie bombers.  It would have been a war of desperation much to what we are seeing in Iraq right now with suicide bombers and car bombs and the such except on a much higher scale.

In some ways i agree it was a way of showing the Red Army what they were capable of but in some many others it was a quick fix to a war tired nation and world.


Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 26, 2005, 15:17:46
Hey, we finaly agree on something :)

The idea that the US dropped the bomb to scare Russia is an old communist-generated conspiracy theory that's been perpetuated way past it's time thanks to groups like ANSWER.  It's extremely popular in the old warsaw pact countries.  Of all the Serbs and Croats I know, almost all of them think of it as a fact rather than propaganda.  Just goes to show what decades of government controled media can do.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 26, 2005, 15:51:39
You mean puppet governments right.    ;D

Yea see we can agree.

i know they were satilite nations, used as a shield to protect the herd from the Western invasion.   ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on January 26, 2005, 16:06:24
I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in"

How about the United States cutting ties with Israel?  Their relationship has undoubtedly benefitted Israel in the region but at the same time generated unprecedented animosity toward the United States...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 26, 2005, 16:14:55
   Would never happen to much money in special intrest groups in the states to lose if that were to happen.  And we all know it is money that makes policy not people.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Horse_Soldier on January 26, 2005, 16:15:08
I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in"

How about the United States cutting ties with Israel?   Their relationship has undoubtedly benefitted Israel in the region but at the same time generated unprecedented animosity toward the United States...

Why should the US cut ties with the only democracy in the Middle East? To appease a bunch of fanatics?   No dice.   That would be craven capitulation on the scale of Neville Chamberlain giving in to Hitler in 1938
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 26, 2005, 16:22:51
I've never really seen a good argument for an alternative method of dealing with terrorist attacks in the West without "going in"

How about the United States cutting ties with Israel?   Their relationship has undoubtedly benefitted Israel in the region but at the same time generated unprecedented animosity toward the United States...

You're joking right?  Lessen terrorist attacks against the west by letting Israel get wiped out?  You're a real humanitarian...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 26, 2005, 16:25:45
You're joking right?   Lessen terrorist attacks against the west by letting Israel get wiped out?   You're a real humanitarian...

Ok its a full moon

we have agreed on two issues on the same form i better buy a lottery ticket.

 ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 26, 2005, 16:46:11
Quote
"Flash forward to the period since 1979. Iraq uses terrorism against diplomats, sponsors terrorist groups in the Middle East (some of which, like Hamas and Hezbollah have branch offices in Canada and global reach), uses barbaric practices like human wave attacks of children to fight the Iraqis and treats its own citizens like slaves. They train, support and sponsor the Jihadis, and are openly seeking nuclear weapons to impose their will on their neighbours (what other use do nuclear weapons have)."

I realize Ba'athist Iraq did many of the same things, but the Hezbollah (Party of God) is a distinctly Iranian creation, and the Iraqi military used barbaric tactics like mustard gas attacks to break the waves of Iranian children the Mullahs were sacrificing in the name of Allah the Merciful....
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 26, 2005, 16:50:16
He was correcting you.  Look at the second sentence of what you wrote.  You put in "Iraq" instead of "Iran".  Either that was an accident or I total missed the point of your post.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 26, 2005, 16:51:29
That is all i meant by the post.   Was i think you meant to use Iran instead of Iraq.   In the postion.   Iraq did alot of that stuff plus gassed it's own people and the kurds as well.

I have no sympathy for those who did the crime.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on January 26, 2005, 17:19:53
Only democracy? Didn't the US just install a democracy in Afghanistan...

And what are the necessary allegiances of the US to Israel beyond political concerns, I hardly think their protecting them out of their own humanitarian aims.  Beyond that, look at history.  Israel can militarily take care of itself, not to mention that it is the only nation in the region possessing nuclear weapons...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 26, 2005, 18:28:04
Well you're allowed to hardly think if you want, but I'm pretty sure most of us are in agreement on the neccesity, both for humanitarian reasons and self-interest, of strong relations between the US and Israel.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 26, 2005, 18:43:49
How do you Install a democracy?

What if you can't figure out how to work it, does it come with a warranty or exchange policy?

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: George Wallace on January 26, 2005, 18:55:06
How do you Install a democracy?

It takes time.  They will have to have Election after Election over a great number of years, before the populace is comfortable and safe from Terrorists.  Eventually "Lawlessness" will be done away with and the people will have a "safe" democratic nation.

Quote

What if you can't figure out how to work it, does it come with a warranty or exchange policy?


Like our "Democracy" there are no warranties or garrantees.  No exchange policy.

It took years for the nations after WW II to create Democracies that worked.  There was no magic wand waved and presto Japan, Germany, Italy and a few other nations like Taiwan, became Democracies.  It took years.  Some worked out better than others. 

GW
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Steve on January 26, 2005, 20:00:30
Especially in an area like the Middle East with it's religious problems and civil strife..
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 26, 2005, 20:05:04
Check out what Collier's magazine had to say about the posibility of democracy in Italy.  The parrallels are just amazing.


Quoted from http://www.calblog.com


Can Italy Learn Democracy?

That's the headline on the cover of a Collier's magazine dated November 27, 1943. It's an article written when Italy was in the throes of a post-war state similar to that in Iraq. Here's the article summary, straight from page 11:
Besides the adults who are members of the Party, Italy has a whole generation which reached maturity under Fascism. Re-educating this group and settling antagonisms which threaten to produce a civil war are the big problems in the creation of a democratic Italy

Such doom and gloom. Sound familiar? Substitute Saddam for Fascism and Iraq for Italy and this could have been written this morning in any number of mainstream press outlets.

Here are some passages about Marshal Badoglio, the man leading Italy before their first elections -- the equivalent of Iraq's Allawi:
There's so little leadership left in Italy that up to mid-October, Badoglio hadn't been able to find enough men, pending opening of the jail doors, to fill out his cabinet.

* * *

But he has guaranteed the British and American governments that, upon his installation in Rome, he will form a government of all shadings of public opinion, excluding all Fascists or pro-Fascists. As soon as possible after Italy's liberation, elections will be held to permit Italians to choose their own government.


How did Italy ever make it? And what's this "British and American governments"? Why isn't there a broader-based coalition?

There's no timeline for elections there. Parts of Italy, though Mussolini was toppled, were still controlled by the Germans. Badoglio didn't have peace throughout the whole country yet. Parts were a "no-go" zone, as Kerry complained about parts of Iraq.

Remember Kerry's complaints that Alawi had to rule from behind a walled compound:
n what is left of Italy -- four provinces in the heel of the boot . . . [the king] and Badoglio live in damp, unheated villas without running water.

Were there complaints that Badoglio was a puppet government? Of course:
Members of [the Communist and Socialist] organizations to whom I talked in Cairo, Algiers and here in Italy, complain that by "setting up" the king and Badoglio, the Allies have not given the Italians leaders who symbolize the true democtratic sentiment of the people.

The conclusion to the article expresses the hopelessness of the situation:
In spite of all indications of progress, Italy's ultimate destiny is clouded in uncertainties. Italy is a nation with a glorious Roman past, and a tragic Fascist present, and an unfathomable future. . . . Compared to these problems, the matter of forming a new government in freed Italy, with or without Badoglio, fades into unimportance.

Just as holding elections in Iraq doesn't matter with terrorists still in control of Fallujah?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: radiohead on January 27, 2005, 01:41:56
"Like our "Democracy" there are no warranties or garrantees.  No exchange policy.

It took years for the nations after WW II to create Democracies that worked.  There was no magic wand waved and presto Japan, Germany, Italy and a few other nations like Taiwan, became Democracies.  It took years.  Some worked out better than others."

If you at the inter-war period you would see that Germany was very democratic and had those traditions in place well before WW1.  It was the events of great depression taht lead to the growth in support of Hilter.  Once he was in, he changed the system to keep his party in power. If the depression had never taken place then the US would not stopped the loans it was giving to Germany to help it pay France and UK for WW1.  Without the loans it send the German economy into a tail spin and this helped to get Hilter elected. 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 27, 2005, 01:51:07
If you at the inter-war period you would see that Germany was very democratic and had those traditions in place well before WW1.   It was the events of great depression taht lead to the growth in support of Hilter.   Once he was in, he changed the system to keep his party in power. If the depression had never taken place then the US would not stopped the loans it was giving to Germany to help it pay France and UK for WW1.   Without the loans it send the German economy into a tail spin and this helped to get Hilter elected.  

Ah, I knew it had to be the americans fault somehow ;)

If you want to be technical about it, Iraq was also demcratic for a bit before they elected Sadam.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Steve on January 27, 2005, 01:54:21
48Highlander.. he did not blame it on the Americans. It was just one of things that helped Hitler rise to power. One of many, many things.

Love of God .. the way you react to anything challenging America, you're like someone who gets tapped on the shoulder and jumps up guns blazing ready to go in  a split second.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 27, 2005, 01:57:23
Get a sense of humour Steve.  Either that or buy glasses so you can see the little winking smiley face in that post :)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Steve on January 27, 2005, 02:01:21
My contacts are working fine ... that post may not have been the best example around but it's how you react in general to anything remotely "anti-american" or against America in almost any way that I was talking about. Call it whatever you want to call it but you come off as having a rather short fuse that isn't hard to light.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 27, 2005, 02:06:04
My responses to whatshernuts aren't exactly the best example.  Look into the discussions I've had with more intelligent members of the board and you'll realize you're off-base.  Or don't.  I don't particularily care about your opinion of me, so unless I'm addressing you, feel free to keep it to yourself.  If you have other things you wish to discuss that's fine, I have nothing against you, but leave personal comments out of it.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: MagieNoire on January 27, 2005, 02:17:11
Unfortunately I've contributed to this .. but this thread is getting pretty far from what it was meant to be .. I was really enjoynig hearing the debate about the US and Iran and such before ... all this happened. So does anyone else have anymore to say about Iran..?

Briefly, I feel Iran is far my dangerous than Iraq was under Saddam. Look at history. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Saddam at least was under watch and contained but Iran.

I believe the US will head off to Iran next. A very scary proposition.

This has been an interesting thread to read. I see other issues that were brought up, but out of respect for the OP, I won't comment on them.



Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 27, 2005, 11:01:22
We really got off topic there for a while.

Can we get back to the crushing of Iran by the mucho Superior forces of the USA.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 27, 2005, 17:53:40
I would rather see someone put a stop to the assholes in africa killing men women and children then bothering with iran. They remind me of Russia feeling ignored and having to rattle their cage evey so often.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: WB on January 27, 2005, 18:04:48
Quote
I would rather see someone put a stop to the assholes in africa killing men women and children then bothering with iran.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 27, 2005, 18:09:12
Time to stir the pot

WHy would they be interested in Africa there is little oil there and no money for the US to take an interest in?

Really you think that they will just back away from Iran and Syria to go to Africa a contient that has been killing each other since the dawn of man?  For what reason.  Other then humanitarian.  they will let some other nations solve that problem they will stay where the money is.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 27, 2005, 18:19:16
Quote
WHy would they be interested in Africa there is little oil there and no money for the US to take an interest in?

Oh I agree with you. Whats in Africa? Well, nothing.

Some people are going to argue that we should go there because it's the humane thing to do. (I'm one of those dreamers heh)

Others are going to say Iran and the middle east pose more of a threat. Depending how you look at it, thats  true too.  

What irks me is when people start claiming all these rightious reasons for being involved in the middle east yet seemingly ignoring other conflicts. The chaos and killing in Iraq is nothing compared to whats going on in africa.   If were going to involve ourselves with the middle east "to protect ourselves" then thats great, but we should call a spade a spade.   If we want to go to war to "kill evil doers" then lets go crack some heads of people who deserve it and leave no stone unturned.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Torlyn on January 27, 2005, 18:26:19
Time to stir the pot

WHy would they be interested in Africa there is little oil there and no money for the US to take an interest in?


You really think that the war in Iraq is about oil???  Given the cost that the latest Iraqi incursion has cost the united states, (estimates around 151 billion and rising) coupled with the cost of the first persian war (76 billion) you're looking at the american financial cost of ~226 billion dollars...  This does not include any monies or debt forgiveness by the americans to help rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq...  Now, latest estimates have Iraq holding about 112 billion barrels of oil in TOTAL reserves...  Their current output is about 2.5 million barrels a day...  Doing the math, even IF the Americans were to pull, let's say, 50% of the profit out of each bbl (unlikely for obvious reasons) and it costs roughly $8 barrel, with the current price around $48 a barrel, the Americans would be getting $20/barrel, or $50,000,000 a day.  So, just to pay what the actual financial costs have been, they would have to continue stealing that 50% of profits at $48 a barrel for 4520 days, or just under 13 years.  And that's providing they pulled out all support immediately, and refused to help with the rebuilding of the infrastructure.

That 50% of profits is ridiculously high for a reason...  The Americans would not be able to santion Iraq in such a manner at all, and it is highly unlikely that the rest of OPEC would be willing to allow the US to make any sort of "deals" with Iraq to provide cheaper oil, so the above scenario is just to illustrate that even if treaty of versailles-esque sanctions were to be leveled against Iraq, it still wouldn't be worth it.

I just really don't see how anyone can honestly believe the Americans are in Iraq for money.  I used to believe that they were there solely for oil, until I went and crunched the numbers.  It just doesn't seem right.  IMHO, of course.  ;)

T

EDIT - Ghost778 - I agree.  :)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 27, 2005, 18:29:58
If it was really about killing   :mg: the evil doers >:D don't you think they would be in North Korea by now :o.   No this about stabalizing the oil supply from the Gulf and keeping prices resonable for the economy.   yea with some stomping of bad guys to boot.   But really about the good ole green back.   And maybe a little pay back from daddy's last visit to finish some busniess.

It is more then just about oil my friend there is more money there then just oil.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on January 27, 2005, 18:38:25
Really?  Want to name some of these other sources of revenue and perhaps provide figures?


Claiming that there's any one reason for the Invasion of Iraq is childish.  There were obviously a multitude of factors affecting that decision.  If the US didn't care about human rights abuses, terrorism, and WMD, they wouldn't have bothered maintaining a no-fly zone and handicapping themselves by placing sanctions on Iraq and refusing to buy oil from Iran.  On the other hand, if humanitarian concerns were the only reason, you're right, they would have gone into Africa or North Korea.  So obviously, there were numerous reasons, amongst them humanitarian, economic, and defensive.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 27, 2005, 18:47:08
Think of the money private coperations are going to make from the rebuilding phases.  Think of the money the US grain and agriculture department will get supplying food.

By stabilizing the region they stabilize the price of oil in the whole region.  Have you seen how volital that market is. 

What i meant is there is more then Iraq's oil to be considered here.  Having a military presence in the area will keep OPEC honest, or as honest as say the UN. 

If WMD were a concern, where are they?

I do agree there were other forces but they new alot of what was going on in Iraq before they went in Iran is a different story my friend. 

oh yea no luck on my lottery ticket.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 27, 2005, 18:48:53
For sure. It's all about balancing reasons and pros&cons.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: dutchie on January 27, 2005, 18:49:43
You'd think that the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide and the 60th anniversary of the liberation (and discovery) of Auschwitz (sp?), coupled with the humanitarian catastrophe occurring in Africa right now, that the West would actually act BEFORE the killing/genocide/whatever is complete.

Unfortunately, the pace of action is a lot slower (it seems) when there is not a financial investment involved. Colonial powers in Africa (like Belgium, France, Holland) act quick, but have questionable motives. African nations act fairly quick, but their capability (particularly in the area of logistical support of heavy airlift capability) is limited at best (not to mention their level of training). Unfortunately, that leaves the rest of the West....but we are SO SLOW to act, that it becomes too little, too late.

I understand that from a completely cold, political perspective, that securing western interests in the Middle East is a higher priority than stopping black Africans (Sub-Saharan) from killing each other, especially when they are located in a resource poor country....but for heavens sake, haven't the Sudanese been killing each other for months now? Isn't there any interest in stopping the killing of 1000's of Sudanese?


BTW, if anyone thinks that the War in Iraq has nothing to do with oil (throughout the Middle East, not just Iraq), they're fooling themselves. Sure, there are other reasons (like 48th said), but oil was a big reason.....no blame there, that's a legitimate reason for INTEREST in what happens there, but you still need other reasons to go to war.

Oops, just opened a can I thought I had firmly closed.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 27, 2005, 18:52:05
I have a list here some where that has i think 12 legit reasons for war when i find it i will add it to this post.

And yup the can is open and the worms are crawling.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Torlyn on January 27, 2005, 20:29:32
Really?  Want to name some of these other sources of revenue and perhaps provide figures?


I'm assuming this was for W of O...  What I was getting at in my post is that too many people claim that the Americans are in Iraq JUST for the oil...  I was trying to refute that in my post.  (Gotta work on that whole clarity thing ;))  I think Ghost778 summed it up best when he said " It's all about balancing reasons and pros&con".  While "stabilizing" (I have this in quotes, as $50/bbl isn't exactly a good stability for the Yanks) oil prices may have something to do with the Iraqi invasion, there are a mulititude of other reasons that the Americans are there, and claiming it's all about the money just doesn't sit well.  Sure, it helps, but it's not everything.  If the African nations were able to directly threaten American soil and interests the way the the Iraqis and al-Quaida (I always spell that wrong) did, I'm sure they would have shifted at least some operations to Africa by now...  Easy for me to say, as a self-proclaimed arm-chair general.  :D

T
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bert on January 27, 2005, 20:43:44
Another Stratfor special I know everyone is waiting for...


The Three-Power Game
www.stratfor.com

By George Friedman


Now the question becomes Iran. But the Iran question is not the simplistic "next target" issue that has been framed by the media -- or the Bush administration for that matter. The Iran question is far more complex, subtle and defining. It divides into two questions. First, once Iraq holds elections, what will Iran's policy be toward Iraq's new Shiite government? Second, since the Shiite-Sunni split is fundamental to the Islamic world, how will the United States manage and manipulate that divide?

To approach these questions, we need to look at the world through Iran's eyes. Iran has a single, overwhelming national security interest: protecting itself from encroachments by foreign powers. After World War II, the primary threat came from the Soviet Union. Another threat, both ancient and continual, came from Iraq. Under both the shah and the ayatollahs, Iraq constituted what became Iran's major national security threat.

The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s had a devastating effect on Iran. There is hardly an Iranian family that did not suffer a loss in that war. Iraq came out ahead in the war militarily, but had it simply defeated Iran, the result would have been catastrophic. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Iraq has been Iran's nightmare.

This is why the Iranians did not seriously object to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. To the contrary, the Iranians did everything they could to encourage and entangle the Americans in the war -- including providing intelligence that triggered American responses. There was nothing more important for Iran than seeing Saddam Hussein's regime collapse.

For Iran, the best outcome of the war would be a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. The second best outcome would be chaos in Iraq. Both provide Iran with what it needs: a relatively secure frontier and an opportunity to shape events to the west. The third -- and least acceptable -- outcome would be a neutral Iraq. Neutrality is highly changeable.

It had been Iran's hope that the U.S. invasion would create a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. The United States certainly dangled this possibility in front of the Iranians. Ahmed Chalabi, the original fair-haired boy of the Pentagon, had a dual role to play. He was the conduit the Iranians used to pump intelligence into Washington that justified and required the invasion. He was also the channel used by the United States to convince the Iranians to keep the lid on the Iraqi Shia. Chalabi told Iran that the United States would give them what they wanted if the Shia remained quiet. Chalabi, like a figure in a Cold War espionage novel, was used and used up by both sides.

The Iranians will get a Shiite government in Baghdad after the election. It is not clear at all that it will be a puppet state. The Iraqi and Iranian Shia have diverging interests and somewhat different views of the kind of regime they want. Nevertheless, whatever the tensions, any Shiite regime is better than a Sunni regime as far as the Iranians are concerned. Even for this there will be a price. The new government will continue to control Shiite regions and probably have the cooperation of the Kurds. It will not control Sunni regions, where the insurgency is in place. There will not be a real Iraqi state unless the Sunni insurgency is defeated. The Shia -- with the Americans -- can potentially defeat the Sunnis, but Iranian cooperation is necessary. At the very least, the Iranians will have to avoid destabilizing the Shiite government by manipulating the Iraqi Shia to get more pro-Iranian officials in place. They will also have to share tactical intelligence on the Sunni insurgency with the Americans.

Alternatively, they can go with their second-best choice: chaos in Iraq. Under that scenario, the Shia in Iraq are pressured not to fight the Sunnis and the Iraqi regime becomes the government of Shiite Iraq and nothing more. At that point, Iraq, in effect, becomes divided into three states -- Shia, Sunni, Kurd.

This is a tempting proposition. The problem the Iranians have is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If Iraq collapses and the Iranians dominate southern Iraq, then the road is open militarily to Kuwait and Saudi oil fields. The Iranians might not want to take advantage of this, but the Arabs cannot hope for the best as a foreign policy.

The Saudis cannot afford chaos in Iraq or for the road from Iran to be wide open. They will increase their dependence on the United States and will be forced to do whatever they can to reduce the rebellion in the Sunni region. A united Iraq under a Shiite-dominated coalition government will secure Iran's western frontiers, but will deny it the opportunity to dominate the region. A divided Iraq will give Iran secure borders, an opportunity for domination and serious responses from Arab states. It will drive the Arabs into the Americans' arms. Things could get dicey fast for the Iranians. The United States is letting them know -- via the convenient conduit of Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker magazine -- that it is ready to push back hard on Iran. U.S. President George W. Bush directly warned the Iranians on Jan. 26 to stay out of the Iraqi elections. The Iranians are signaling back that they are a nuclear power -- which is not true yet.

The Iranians have a fundamental strategic decision to make. They can work with the United States and secure their interests. They can undermine the United States and go for the big prize: domination of the Persian Gulf. The first is low risk, the second incredibly high risk.

Behind this all there is a complex three-power game. There is the United States, in a war with factions of the Sunni. There are the Sunnis themselves, divided and unsure of their direction. There are the Shia, maneuvering to shift the political balance with the Sunni without becoming American puppets. Within each of these communities -- including the American -- there are deep divides, complex contradictions and political tensions. Each side is trying to use these to its advantage.

How this relationship plays out is the real issue. The question of the Sunni insurrection in four provinces of Iraq is not unimportant, but it is not defining. It is simply the arena in which the basic strategic complexity is being played out. But the real game is: Three players, each trying to create an alliance that locks out the third without limiting its own freedom of action, with none of the players really in control of the situation. It reminds us a bit of the U.S.-Soviet-Chinese game in 1968-1970. But even there, although internal factionalism was rife in all three countries, the decision-making process was not that chaotic.

That's why, in the end, it does not boil down to the Shia as much as to Iran. Iran can opt to align with the United States and define the terms under which it will accept a united Iraq under a Shiite-led coalition government, or it can go for it all, undermine the Shiite leadership in Iraq and open the door to the division of Iraq into three parts, with southern Iraq in the Iranian sphere of influence and the road to the western littoral of the Persian Gulf wide open -- except for the United States.

Iran has a low-risk, low-reward choice and a high-risk, high-reward choice. How lucky is Iran feeling?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Marauder on January 27, 2005, 20:44:43
Let's face it, the Sudanese (or residents of any other African country) would still be killing each other even if there was an American/NATO presence in the area. The first time some section of Marines was being overrun and opened up the emergency can of "You die now", the press would be screaming bloody murder. Then Kofi would have to take time out of his busy schedule of spinning his offspring's involvment in the "Oil for Fraud" business to denounce the senseless killing of some fifth-rate thugs with third-rate (Russian/Chinese) equipment by some ugly 'Mericans. Then there would be the usual navel gazing and second guessing of the grunts on the ground, and it just turn into another Rwanda/Srbernica. The REMFs and generals would slap on a restrictive ROE and order no interference, and the guys on the ground would have to stand by and let the killing go on ad nauseum. Then the whacko left would whine that the troops are "letting the genocide occur before their eyes", and if the troops whacked some of the skinnies with guns, then the troops would be racist, vicious babykillers who are out of control. Damned if you do, ****ed over if you don't.

You think Iraq is a quagmire? Remember the whole Somalia debacle? Remember what happened when one shithead went off the deepend and got the whole CF smeared as racist murderers, and dealt the death blow to the Airborne? Africa is nothing but trouble, with no discernable benefit to Canada, except setting the Forces up to be the Government's ***** yet again. Nothing the CF could accomplish in Africa would last more than a week after we pulled out. Let's fight and kill the people who can do us actual harm, not the ones who will just force us to do harm to ourselves. May sound selfish, but I'm an *******. So what?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 27, 2005, 21:04:01
One might argue that since our troops are fighting in iraq and afghanastan ergo (hey look, im trying to sound like the university debater types) there has been no attacks on US soil.   Though honestly i'm still a little skeptical that iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Anyhow, theres a million considerations that could have been made.
Occupy their attention to keep them away from north america.
Fixing a mistake they made.
Removing a possible threat.
Giving their troops combat experience.
Testing new inventions and weapons.
Giving   companies contracts in said occupied country.
Heck maybe even just getting rid of old rations :)
Theres a million and one reasons why we went to war, some noble, others much less so.

I really liked one post Infanteer made a while ago about the game civilization. (I probably won't do his post credit here)
Basically your country, when your a democracy, hates war. If your constantly making war your going to loose support of your people. Sooner or later they revolt. You need to make peace soon.
However, when you run our of rubber, steel, oil [whatever] you had better find a new sourse of it fast, including invading another country for it. When the resources stop flowing (and as i see it, the quality of life drops) your people will let you do just about anything to get it back.
Not totally relivant to this conversation but i think it's something to consider when people act like going to a war for a resource is something only the anti-christ would do.

Suppose Iran did start crap with the states, could the states effectivly deal with them you think?
I remember always hearing that the US armed forces were suposed to be able to fight a major conflict on two fronts. (I picture something like ww2?)
It seems in they are having a hell of a lot more trouble in iraq than they thought. From issues of body and vehicle armor to retention rates and dwindling new recruits.   Given that thought, i'm not sure how easily the US could "blow through" iran's defenses.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 27, 2005, 22:38:51
Suppose Iran did start crap with the states, could the states effectively deal with them you think?
I remember always hearing that the US armed forces were supposed to be able to fight a major conflict on two fronts. (I picture something like ww2?)
It seems in they are having a heck of a lot more trouble in Iraq than they thought. From issues of body and vehicle armor to retention rates and dwindling new recruits.  Given that thought, I'm not sure how easily the US could "blow through" Iran's defenses.

Ghost, please take the time to read all the pages on this thread, or better yet go to the "Syria and Iran, War of the Future?" thread, and you will see some of the options we believe are possible (although not necessarily desirable) for the United States.

Your remarks about the "two conflict rule" represent American thinking during the Cold War era (i.e. fighting in Germany and North Korea), but I do not believe this is the rule anymore. Even if it is unofficial policy, the deep force drawdowns during the Clinton administration would make it quite difficult to enact, and it will take several years to build new American divisions (just like it will take us up to five years to recruit, train and equip the 5000 troops the Prime Minister promised in the last election. Perhaps you could drop him a note asking what has happened to that plan?).

Most of the "issues" about body armour and so on have been revealed to be "selective" in nature. When that soldier quizzed Donald Rumsfeldt about the lack of armoured HMMVWs in Iraq, his unit already had over 70% of the fleet armoured, and the remainder were being kitted out in the motor pool as he spoke. Perhaps he, or the reporter who put him up to it just didn't bother walking through the compound. Perhaps serving Americans can give us the exact figures, but many military "bloggers" report high rates of re-enlistment among troops in or just returned from Iraq, since they feel they are making a positive contribution. The reporting issues are so bad that at least on American LCol has written a piece (posted on this forum, although I can't find it just now) which openly states the media are practically committing treason by ignoring the achievments of the troops and reporting for the Jihadis (who are never called Jihadis or terrorists by the media).

Your point about competition for resources is correct in historical terms, empires were created to gain access to resources, and wars were fought between empires over the colonial resource base (or lack of same). On the other hand, we in the West are moving away from that paradigm, shifting to many less resource intensive processes and activities (replacing copper telephone wire with glass fiber optic cable, for example). We still use a huge amount of resources, but also get far more from them. The United States is accused of consuming something like 30% of the world's resources, but produces about 40% of the worlds economic output. Imagine if they were as efficient as the Chinese, for example.

Resource driven conflict will be a smaller factor in the future, as we move in fits and starts to a more information intensive economy. (The final realization may be centuries away, when information technology is embedded in everything), but conflicts driven by ideas may become far more dangerous in the future. You can't win a military victory, you must defeat and discredit an idea as well. Victor Davis Hanson is the military historian who expresses this idea most clearly, look up "The Soul of Battle", "Carnage and Culture", and "Ripples of Battle" to examine the thesis for yourself.

Cheers
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 27, 2005, 23:34:48
Quote
Ghost, please take the time to read all the pages on this thread, or better yet go to the "Syria and Iran, War of the Future?" thread, and you will see some of the options we believe are possible (although not necessarily desirable) for the United States.

Thanks for the direction, i'll take a look at that thread as well as go through this one. 
I appologize for not reading the whole thread before weighting in (I think i've gave posters crap for that in the past).  I scanned a page or two and each post I looked at seemed pretty far off track. Some other posters [*waves to CiviU and magienoire*] gave me the idea that it was just one big argument so i skipped to the end.. Maybe I just had bad luck with which posts i looked at.  Never the less, bad form on my part and i'll smarten up  ;)

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: ajax on January 28, 2005, 04:44:24
This has been an interesting read so far, but I have to think that your all getting pretty old.   We spent the majority of Highschool learning about Europe/WW1/WW2 and some of you have it bang on while some seem to have a rather anti american view that over shadows the truth.  

Would you have let a probable 1million of your people die, or kill what?   100,000 of the enemy?   Considering they were fire bombing them at the time aswell it worked out better to nuke em.

On topic though.

[EDITED FOR INFLAMMATORY REMARKS:  AJAX, YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE, SIT BACK, LISTEN AND REFRAIN FROM OFFERING UP SUCH SILLY, JUVENILE COMMENTS - INFANTEER]

What's almost as bad is the U.N.   I thought they were supposed to stop massacres/genocides.   Heck we learned that's why the League of Nations was scrapped as they didn't do thier job, and hence WW2 started.   The U.N seems to be going the same route and should similarly be dumped, I mean with what's going on in Africa, the scandals etc it's pretty obvious that something needs to change.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Torlyn on January 28, 2005, 14:09:06
What's almost as bad is the U.N.  I thought they were supposed to stop massacres/genocides.  Heck we learned that's why the League of Nations was scrapped as they didn't do thier job, and hence WW2 started.  The U.N seems to be going the same route and should similarly be dumped, I mean with what's going on in Africa, the scandals etc it's pretty obvious that something needs to change.

MY sympathies to the provincial high school systems...   ::)

T
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 28, 2005, 16:49:40
I love seeing other get jumped on instead of me in a post. ;D

The policy that said they had to be able to fight to major conflicts at the same time did date back to WWII. (Domino Theroy)   It was also based in the Naval thought after WWI that said they needed to have a navy equal to the the next to largest navys in the world so twice the size of its competition. I can't remember the name of the admiral that started that policy i want to say MONROE but that is not right. 

The Problem with going into affrica as opposed to South Asia even for Humanitarian aid is (this is my opinion only) three things. 

A.  The corruption at all levels is so great that money given to rebuild and build new infastructure in the nations is divereted to arms or private personal.

B.  The people are so used to coroption and war that they would not know what to do with peace.

C.  To many different factions killing each other for nothing other then race/religion and the list goes on and on.  They don't want peace it would be to hard to enforce because as what happened in Rwanda and even Somalia at the first sign of trouble the UN or what ever nation was in would have to pull out.  Not because they could not handel the conflict but then they would seem like the bad guys.  You have to remember the warlords are smart they know how to play the press.  Arm the kids and tell them to shoot the troops footage like that would kill the americans at home ad around the world

remeber this is my opinion only

If they want to go into Africa then you have to go in as a war maker not a peace keeper as there is no peace.  You have to come with an Iron fist as it is the only thing these people tend to understand.

Ok now you guess can hammer me.   :-X
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Infanteer on January 28, 2005, 17:49:04
You got your ideas mixed up a bit:

The policy that said they had to be able to fight to major conflicts at the same time did date back to WWII. (Domino Theroy)

The Domino Theory was the theory that if one state fell to communism, it's neighbours would soon also fall to revolutionary fervor.   This is a different than the concept that saw the US Military judge its readiness by being able to respond to two Major Regional Contingencies at the same time.

Quote
It was also based in the Naval thought after WWI that said they needed to have a navy equal to the the next to largest navys in the world so twice the size of its competition. I can't remember the name of the admiral that started that policy i want to say MONROE but that is not right.

This was a Royal Navy policy, I believe.   A longstanding policy which was applied to ensure the security of the British Isles, the Empire, and the sea-lanes in between - it really got trumpeted when a newly-created Germany industrialized and sought its "place in the sun".   As for the Admiral's name, I don't think Admiral Sir Jack Fisher was the creator of such a policy, but he sure was a drumbeater for it in the latter half of the 19th century.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on February 01, 2005, 20:28:54
Think of the money private coperations are going to make from the rebuilding phases.   Think of the money the US grain and agriculture department will get supplying food.

And who's paying for the majority of the rebuilding?  How exactly does it benefit the US for their companies to get paid for the rebuilding when they're the ones who end up paying for it?  How much money is being put into providing food and water?  Do you REALLY beleive that the ammonunt of money they make will be even half of what they've spent?

By stabilizing the region they stabilize the price of oil in the whole region.   Have you seen how volital that market is.  

Yeah but when the price is "stabilized" at a level higher than the pre-war average, that's not really a positiv thing now is it? :P

What i meant is there is more then Iraq's oil to be considered here.   Having a military presence in the area will keep OPEC honest, or as honest as say the UN.  

That we can agree on.

If WMD were a concern, where are they?

I really hate that line of argument.  Ever hear of probable cause?  If a police officer has reason to suspect that you've commited a crime, he has every right to detain, question, and search you.  If his investigation turns up nothing, it doesn't mean that he had some evil ulterior motive, nor does it neccesarily mean that you're innocent.  All it means is that either his assumptions were wrong, or that you're good at hiding the evidence.  Neither situation would invalidate the investigation though.  Fact is, the majority of nations accepted as fact the assumption that Sadam still possesed biological and chemical weapons.  They knew for a fact that he was developing delivery systems with a range longer than one allowed under UN directives.  And they passed a resolution to take action if Sadam didn't come clean about his weapons program.  All those things put together more than add up to "probable cause".
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on February 01, 2005, 20:42:21
"Do you REALLY beleive that the ammonunt of money they make will be even half of what they've spent?"

The amount of money that private contracts make in Iraq will certainly be more than half of what they'll ultimately spend.  It's the nature of the capitalist system - to generate a profit.

"Ever hear of probable cause?"

Your police analogy is weak at best.  After the police search you and turn up nothing they are not permitted to linger for almost two years...

And if they knew for a fact, as you state, that Saddam had these weapons...then where are they?  I suppose it's all really a moot point now with their having been an election in Iraq, the results of which will undoubtedly generate far more debate at present than the WMD's will...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Torlyn on February 01, 2005, 20:51:48
"Do you REALLY beleive that the ammonunt of money they make will be even half of what they've spent?"

The amount of money that private contracts make in Iraq will certainly be more than half of what they'll ultimately spend.  It's the nature of the capitalist system - to generate a profit.

"Ever hear of probable cause?"

Your police analogy is weak at best.  After the police search you and turn up nothing they are not permitted to linger for almost two years...

And if they knew for a fact, as you state, that Saddam had these weapons...then where are they?  I suppose it's all really a moot point now with their having been an election in Iraq, the results of which will undoubtedly generate far more debate at present than the WMD's will...

I don't think you read his entire post...  Who do you think is paying for it?  As 48th said, the US GOVERNMENT will be paying for it...  Now, if they have to spend 10 billion dollars (random number) beefing up the infrastructure in Iraq, how much of that does the american government get back?  Hmm...   ::)

So what you are saying regarding the WMD is that the UN, with Hans Blix and a team of investigators, who repeatedly were denied access to places where they KNEW these weapons were (the same mustard gas that Saddam used on the Kurds, threatened the Americans with, or hey!  How about the hydrogen cyanide he used against (you guessed it!) the Kurds?  The nerve agents?

It must be wonderful being in a world so full of conspiracy theories, I guess.  The best part for you?  No proof just strengthens your "theory".  I mean, Saddam HAD WMD during the first gulf war...  Why were they not destroyed?  Where did they go?  Oh wait...  Probably off-lifted by the Americans to Area 51 in order to further the conspiracy.  ;)

T
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on February 01, 2005, 20:59:41
"Do you REALLY beleive that the ammonunt of money they make will be even half of what they've spent?"

The amount of money that private contracts make in Iraq will certainly be more than half of what they'll ultimately spend.   It's the nature of the capitalist system - to generate a profit.

In one word....."huh?"

So your argument goes something like this:
Nobody needs to prove that the US is going to make more money than they spend because they're an Evil Capitalist Empire.   Therefore it is inconcievable that they would start a war which would not generate profit.

Does that about sum it up?

Your police analogy is weak at best.   After the police search you and turn up nothing they are not permitted to linger for almost two years...

Uhuh.   And if they determine that you plan on slaughtering any of your neighbours who hold different political or religious beleifs, I suppose they'd just let you go.   You sure you're living in Canada?

And if they knew for a fact, as you state, that Saddam had these weapons...then where are they?

What part of the probable cause analogy did you have problems comprehending?   Or are you refering to my statement about the delivery systems?   Those are well documented, although for some reason nobody seems to remember them.   Allow me to refresh your memory:

Quote
from   http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htm :
In February 2003, U.N. inspectors evaluated two versions of the Al Samoud 2 missile using four separate computer models. Both versions were found to exceed the range limit of 150 kilometers set by the U.N. Security Council. The lighter version of the Al Samoud 2 was estimated to have a range of 193 kilometers, while the heavier version would be capable of a 162 km range. Accordingly, it was requested that all Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads be delivered to the inspectors for destruction.

A cache of 12 Al Samoud missiles was found south of Bayji at LD7154 and LD7644 on 21 July 2003 at 1700 hrs.

And then we have the missiles which we know were under development, but never actually manufactured:

Quote
from http://www.janes.com/aerospace/news/jmr/jmr041019_1_n.shtml :
Between 2000 and the arrival in Iraq of United Nations Monitoring, Inspection and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors in November 2002, Iraqi engineers worked on three clandestine programmes to develop long-range ballistic missiles. Details of all three missiles were revealed in the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD published on 30 September 2004.

Two of the missiles were based on liquid propellants, the third on solid propellants. All would have had ranges of 500km or more, exceeding the 150km range restriction set by UN Resolution 687.

As a result of UN sanctions, none of these projects left the drawing board despite three years of work by Iraq, while the arrival of UNMOVIC inspectors forced Iraq to attempt the destruction of all evidence that the projects had existed.

According to a senior Iraqi missile engineer interviewed by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), the plan to develop missiles with a range of more than 150km dated back to 1997 or 1998. During a monthly ballistic-missile meeting at the Military Industrialization Commission (MIC), Minister of Military Industrialisation Abd-al-Tawab Abdallah al Mullah Huwaysh (who was to become deputy prime minister from 2001 to 2003), stated his desire for a 1,000km missile. In mid-1999, Huwaysh is reported to have told a meeting of Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard personnel that Iraq was developing a missile with a range of 500km and that development would take five years.

The formal go-ahead for the new missiles was given by Saddam Hussein in June 2000. Many sources stated that the project was regarded as highly secret, information being passed only in person at face-to-face meetings among a select few individuals. These arrangements may account for the discrepancies in dates provided by various individuals interviewed by the ISG.

The Al Karamah State Establishment, later known as Al Karamah General Company, started work on liquid-propellant concepts, while solid-propellant weapons were studied by the Al Rashid General Company. Both teams seem to have decided that the quickest way to develop long-range missiles would be to cluster existing hardware.

But I suppose that's just more Yankee Propaganda eh?   CIA must have planted the evidence.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on February 02, 2005, 01:05:51
"Therefore it is inconcievable that they would start a war which would not generate profit."

At least we agree here.  There is no way the US would enter into the Iraqi war without the ultimate objective of benefitting politically and economically...

As for the WMD's you seem so certain exist.  Where are they?  You expect me to prove everything...why cant you offer any evidence? Is it because the UN weapons inspectors found nothing?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on February 02, 2005, 01:18:37
At least we agree here.

Come on!  How childish can you posibly be?

As for the WMD's you seem so certain exist.   Where are they?   You expect me to prove everything...why cant you offer any evidence? Is it because the UN weapons inspectors found nothing?

Now I KNOW that our universities are next to useless.  Your comprehension skills are non-existant.  Show me where exactly I claimed that there are currently any WMD's in Iraq.  Do you think that in the future you could be so kind as to limits your arguments to statements I've made instead of things you wish I'd said?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Torlyn on February 02, 2005, 02:40:51
"Therefore it is inconcievable that they would start a war which would not generate profit."

At least we agree here.  There is no way the US would enter into the Iraqi war without the ultimate objective of benefitting politically and economically...

As for the WMD's you seem so certain exist.  Where are they?  You expect me to prove everything...why cant you offer any evidence? Is it because the UN weapons inspectors found nothing?


Oy!!  PAY ATTENTION!!!  I showed where the UN, Han Blix, et al *KNEW* there are WMD in Iraq...  If you are refuting what I say, have something to back it up, else, shut yer piehole...

T
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: jmackenzie_15 on February 02, 2005, 03:44:07
what does this have to do with Iran repelling a US attack?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CivU on February 02, 2005, 10:56:43
"Oy!!  PAY ATTENTION!!!  I showed where the UN, Han Blix, et al *KNEW* there are WMD in Iraq...  If you are refuting what I say, have something to back it up, else, shut yer piehole..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-16-blix-iraq_x.htm

This is old news.  Since late 2003 Hans Blix has stated there are no WMD's in Iraq and that suspiscions were incorrect.  As for "piehole" you really do know how to contribute intellectually to this discussion...


jmackenzie_15:  this has everything to do with Iran.  With the elections in Iraq now over, and the potential, but nonetheless slow and prolonged withdrawl of US troops, it is entirely possible that to invade Iran over this presidential term, any number of claims will be made on grounds that were as contrived as the ones for the Iraq invasion of March 2003...

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on February 02, 2005, 11:13:35
I really hate that line of argument.  Ever hear of probable cause?  If a police officer has reason to suspect that you've commited a crime, he has every right to detain, question, and search you.  If his investigation turns up nothing, it doesn't mean that he had some evil ulterior motive, nor does it neccesarily mean that you're innocent.  All it means is that either his assumptions were wrong, or that you're good at hiding the evidence.  Neither situation would invalidate the investigation though.  Fact is, the majority of nations accepted as fact the assumption that Sadam still possesed biological and chemical weapons.  They knew for a fact that he was developing delivery systems with a range longer than one allowed under UN directives.  And they passed a resolution to take action if Sadam didn't come clean about his weapons program.  All those things put together more than add up to "probable cause".

New Case law in Canada says that even if they have reason to suspect you in a crime you cannot be search you unless you are arrested for the crime.  This case law came out this summer.  From an incedint in Winipeg.  So using your own annalage the US would have had to have enough proof to arrest Iraq in order to go in and search the nation for its WMD. 

This is not to say that at one point they did not exist but if this is your sole cause for going to war then you had better find the smoking gun.  They did not.

I hate to have CiviU back me on this but.... probable cause is not beoyond a resonable doubt.  I know i will get jumped on for this but stir the pot i must it is like a calling or maybe an illness. :D

As for the war the US government may pay billions in cost so that some of it's "friends" may make hundreds of millions in profits of rebuilding off of the taxpayers backs .

stir stir stir

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 02, 2005, 13:25:17
There were any number of "probable causes", ranging from defiance of UN resolutions, committing acts of war against the US and the UK, activities consistent with the development of WMD, activities consistent with the support of terrorist organizations, genocidal actions against the local population, corruption of French, German, Chinese and UN officials in exchange for under the table arms sales and political interference in the UN and so on. Despite most or all of these reasons being explicitly stated by the Clinton and Bush administrations over a period of years, there seems to be a severe case of selective hearing as for the justifications for OIF.

The common law precedent of "probable cause" is a good analogy, Canadian case law seems to be rapidly filling up with unwarranted assumptions (I listened to a radio interview with a UWO Law professor who asserted that viewing crime as the action of an individual  committing the transgression was incorrect. If they are teaching that in Law school, who knows what sort of case law will be developed?)

As far as Iran is concerned, there are many "probable causes" as well. Supporting the Jihadis and Hezbollah is bad enough, and their stated nuclear ambitions should also make thinking people everywhere begin to worry. The factors working in "our" favor is the presence of a viable pro democracy movement inside Iran, which has the potential of doing the heavy lifting for the West. The elections and process of creating a consensual government in Iraq should bolster the pro democracy forces in Iran (and indeed throughout the region).

This being said, the pro democracy movement will be a more gradual process, and if the Mullahs decide to short circuit things with a massive provocation, then coallition military response is warrented. Based on many factors discussed on this and other boards, the most probable military action would be a "head shot" to decapitate the regime and isolate it from the population and organs of power.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Torlyn on February 02, 2005, 17:11:01

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-16-blix-iraq_x.htm

This is old news.   Since late 2003 Hans Blix has stated there are no WMD's in Iraq and that suspiscions were incorrect.   As for "piehole" you really do know how to contribute intellectually to this discussion...


As 48th said...  Both these articles say that there WERE WMD in Iraq...  You implied that Saddam never had WMD, when the inspectors were there...  Nice of you to give evidence to support my position.  How's that piehole again?   ;D  As far as an intellectual contribution, please se 48th's comment regarding: you.

W of O:  I asked a few of my lawyer type profs, and they were suprised to hear this, as were a few of my cop buddies, as they are still detaining and searching people with the "smoking gun"...  If they get a call to a house for a B&E, and someone is running down the street away from the house, even if they didn't see the person exiting the house (no smoking gun) they will still chase, detain and question...  Perhaps I misunderstood?  A link to the caselaw would be helpful. As for the money,  ::).

T
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on February 02, 2005, 17:18:43
I think what the Wizard is saying is that in the past the police had the right to search you before saying the words "you are under arrest for...", whereas now they have to say those words first before they can search you :)  small technicality.  I'm not sure wether or not he's right about that, but either way it's not a big difference, and doesn't in any way disprove any part of my analogy.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on February 02, 2005, 17:26:19
Ohh you can detain him and question him but anything found by a search would not be allowed as eviedence i will find the case law and attach it.   It jsut came out last summer and it was inregard to a guy suspected of a a B&E and the the cops detained and searched him they found drugs which they charged him for.   The courts ruled that the search was unlawful and breached his Charter 8 rights and the eviednce was tossed under sec 24(2).   So if you search a guy (or girl) now it has to be incedent to arrest. otherewise your evidence is tossed.   If your cop friends don't know that then they are out of the loop it posted all over this office for weeks after it happned. WHAT NOT TO DO.

I don't disagree that it is possible that he had them but when it came time to find them they were not around.   Hence no smokin gun.   I know the Majoor will jump on this but that is fine.

Getting back on topic; now that the elections are over does anyone see a time line for either an intial puhs into IRAN or SYRIA or with the saber ratteling going on over NK is that the next stepping stone for Democracy.   

I can see the US maintaining an Airbase in Norther IRAQ just close enough to do serious damage to both Iran or Syria.   thoughts?

I found it it is Rv MANN 2004 SCC 52   the courts allow a pat down but it has to be for officer safety reasons going into the pockets and such would not be allowed.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on February 02, 2005, 17:36:42
You got your ideas mixed up a bit:  SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS  :P

The Domino Theory was the theory that if one state fell to communism, it's neighbours would soon also fall to revolutionary fervor.   This is a different than the concept that saw the US Military judge its readiness by being able to respond to two Major Regional Contingencies at the same time.  Not under their concept of domino theory was that if one state fellt to the communist they would have to be able to uphold that state and any other that showed weakness hence Asia


This was a Royal Navy policy, I believe.   A longstanding policy which was applied to ensure the security of the British Isles, the Empire, and the sea-lanes in between - it really got trumpeted when a newly-created Germany industrialized and sought its "place in the sun".   As for the Admiral's name, I don't think Admiral Sir Jack Fisher was the creator of such a policy, but he sure was a drumbeater for it in the latter half of the 19th century.  Actually the American Admiral was MAHN not sure if it is spelt right but he formed it off of the Royal Navy policy and was in place after WWII and was used to beat the MONROE DOCTRINE to death you know that isolationist policy.

my changes are in Yellow.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: PikaChe on June 13, 2005, 00:24:40
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4084908.stm

Bomb damage in Ahwaz, Iran, 12 June 2005
The bombs in Ahwaz exploded over a two-hour period
Six bombs have exploded in Iran, killing at least 10 people, days before the presidential election.

Four blasts targeted public buildings in the south-western city of Ahwaz, killing at least eight people and wounding more than 70 others.

Hours later, a bomb exploded in the capital Tehran, killing two people. Three other bombs were defused.

Bombings have been rare in Iran since the war with Iraq ended in 1988. No group has claimed responsibility.

Ahwaz, which is close to the Iraq border, was the focus of unrest between Arabs and Persians in April, when several people were reportedly killed.

'Failure'

The bombings in Ahwaz took place over a two-hour period.

One of the bombs exploded outside the governor-general's headquarters.

Two went off near government offices and a fourth exploded near the home of a local state television executive.

The explosion in Tehran took place near the Imam Hussein square in the city centre. As well as the two who died, at least two people were wounded.

The interior ministry also confirmed that a bottle filled with explosives blew up in Vali Asr square in central Tehran, but there were no reports of casualties.

A spokesman for the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body, blamed the attacks on separatist Arabs aided by members of the armed Iraq-based opposition group, the People's Mujahideen, and remnants of the Baath Party.

The spokesman, Agha Mohammadi, told the BBC he was sure the Americans were behind the attacks and also suggested that Britain might be involved - but he gave no evidence to support his claims.

The People's Mujahideen denied any involvement in the attacks.

"Whoever is responsible for this, the target of the blasts is to undermine Friday's presidential elections," said interior ministry spokesman Jahanbaksh Khanjani.

Rumour

Iranians go to the polls on Friday to elect a successor to President Mohammad Khatami.

Opinion polls put former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the lead.

April's trouble in Ahwaz - the capital of oil-rich Khuzestan province - started after a letter circulated on the internet suggested that non-Arabs were being-relocated to the city to dilute its ethnic Arab population.

Crowds attacked government offices and banks, setting them on fire, and hundreds of people were arrested.

The official who was supposed to have written the letter said it was a forgery.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on June 13, 2005, 01:34:15
I find it perplexing that 80% of their population is under 30.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Marauder on June 13, 2005, 02:42:46
If it was the Americans, I'm pretty sure Dubya would be on the tube telling the Ayatollah that he's sending the JDAMs "with plenty of hugs and kisses, mother ******!"

Call Dubya what you will, but the sumbitch has balls larger than Paul Martin himself.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Manimal on September 16, 2005, 10:13:58
Iraq's Iranian insurgency
Peter Brookes 
 
Iran is becoming a foreign-policy problem of almost immeasurable proportions -- from its nuclear-weapons brinkmanship to its feverish support of Islamic fundamentalism and international terrorism. 
 
But Tehran's most proximate -- and often overlooked -- threat to American interests is its attempts to destabilize Iraq by supporting and fomenting its own insurgency against Coalition and Iraqi forces. 
 
Tehran is seeking a hasty retreat by the United States and its partners that will leave a political and security vacuum that Iran can readily fill, dragging Iraq into its sphere of influence - or, perhaps, carving off southern Iraq to create an Iranian Shia "super state." 
 
Without question, Iranian encroachment on Iraq must be prevented at all costs. 
 
Some Middle East experts don't buy this take on Iran's involvement in Iraq, especially its geopolitical intentions. Yet Tehran plainly has every reason to want to see the U.S.-led Coalition in Iraq fail. 
 
First, since the 1979 revolution, the "Great Satan" has been Iran's No. 1 enemy. The radical regime found it bad enough having American forces in the region before the Afghan and Iraqi wars, much less having 150,000 cranky, battle-hardened GIs right next door. 
 
Now, Tehran faces not only the prospects of (at least some) American forces being stationed long-term in the theater, a fundamental check on Iranian power, but also the possibility that Iraq and Afghanistan could become strong U.S. allies. 
 
Second, Iran's rulers are deathly afraid that the freedoms taking root in Iraq/Afghanistan will highlight the Iranian revolution's abject political, economic and social failures to Iran's increasingly discontented "baby-boomers." 
 
Iran's young people -- 60 percent under the age of 30 and born after the revolution -- are increasingly going to look at the political, economic and social freedoms enjoyed by Iraqis and Afghans and ask: "Why not us?" 
 
Third, Iran is a Shia Persian country in a tough Sunni Arab neighborhood. Bringing southern Shia-majority Iraq under Iranian influence -- or, even, via secession from Iraq or civil war, Iranian control -- will neuter long-time enemy Iraq as a threat. 
 
Absorbing southern Iraq would not only debilitate Baghdad by cutting off access to Persian Gulf seaports, it would significantly increase Iran's size, population and oil wealth, putting Tehran on a trajectory to regional dominance. 
 
Iran has been slipping clerics, intelligence agents and paramilitary forces into Iraq and bankrolling sympathizers, political parties and militants since the spring 2003 invasion to bring Iraq under its sway - while doing its best to keep its fingerprints off its dirty dealings. 
 
But seeing Coalition forces facing a tough insurgency, Iran evidently decided to seize the opportunity to advance its cause, upping the ante by changing its tactics from garnering influence to actively instigating insurgency against U.S.-Coalition forces -- even Iraqis who might stand in the way. 
 
You want proof? Well, Coalition forces recently intercepted a number of shipments of explosives being spirited across the border from Iran to Iraq. Experts believe that a new, more lethal-type of roadside bomb -- capable of destroying armored vehicles -- is based on an Iranian design often used in the past by Hezbollah against Israel. 
 
Just last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seemingly choking off a desire to be more direct, said: "It is true that weapons, clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have been found in Iraq." Another senior officer claimed that the new bombs are, "the most sophisticated and most lethal devices we've seen." 
 
But it's more than just these new deadly explosives: The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-directed component of the insurgency probably consists of several hundred Iranians and Iraqis as well as members of Lebanon's Iranian-backed, Shia terrorist group, Hezbollah. 
 
Some analysts believe that the Iranian paramilitaries and Iranian-supported militias are training insurgents in southern Iraq as well as in Iran. In addition, it's likely that Iranian-led insurgents are being prepped by Hezbollah guerillas in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. 
 
Iranian behavior is increasingly troubling and problematic for U.S. national security and regional interests -- an Iranian-directed insurgency in Iraq is just the latest example of Persian perfidy. 
 
It's time to stop handling Iran with kid gloves, especially while Iranian hi-tech bombs deployed by Tehran-backed insurgents are killing Coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians, encouraging civil war and destabilizing the country. 
 
It's time for an aggressive rollback strategy against the Iranian regime - to address its drive for nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terror in Iraq and elsewhere, and its repressive rule at home. The strategy should embrace biting economic sanctions, aggressive covert action -- and even surgical military strikes to protect American and Coalition forces and interests. 
 
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/peterbrookes/pb20050822.shtml
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Another Recce Guy on October 27, 2005, 13:51:38
Hardline President's remarks spark fury
Nuclear weapon fears
 
Tim Butcher
The Daily Telegraph; with files from CanWest News Service


October 27, 2005


 
CREDIT: Behrouz Mehri, AFP, Getty Images



IRAN'S GOAL: TO WIPE ISRAEL 'OFF THE MAP': Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday stands in front of the logo for a conference in Tehran entitled "The World Without Zionism." The top of the logo, not shown, is a picture of the globe.
 
JERUSALEM - Iran's new hardline President called yesterday for Israel to be "wiped off the map" -- the first time for many years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for the Jewish state's eradication.

The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted a chorus of international condemnation.

The White House said they underlined American concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Several reports have estimated that Iran is five to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

President Ahmadinejad, elected in June, was addressing a conference in Tehran titled "The World Without Zionism," attended by about 3,000 students who chanted: "Death to Israel!" and "Death to America!"

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," he said. "As the Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] said, 'Israel must be wiped off the map.' The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."

Mr. Ahmadinejad praised Palestinian suicide bombers, and his remarks were delivered just before a suicide bomber killed five people in the Israeli town of Hadera.

It was the worst such attack in three months.

"There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe this disgraceful blot from the face of the world," Mr. Ahmadinejad said.

Germany called his comments "completely unacceptable," and France "firmly condemned them."

In Ottawa, Prime Minister Paul Martin told the House of Commons, "Canada will never accept such hatred, such intolerance and anti-Semitism."

Under his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, Iran had shown signs of easing its hostility toward Israel. But Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments underscored how the gap between Iran and the West has widened during the dispute over Tehran's insistence of developing its nuclear capability. His bellicose language was reminiscent of Iran's Islamic revolution, launched by Khomeini in 1979, when the new President was a young activist.

Israel's Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, said the comments demonstrated that the Iranian leadership represents a genuine threat to Israel's existence.

"We believe that Iran is trying to buy time so it can develop a nuclear bomb," said Mr. Shalom. "Iran is a clear and present danger."

He added: "This kind of regime is very extreme. It would be a nightmare for all the international community if they had a nuclear bomb."

Although Israel is widely believed to have its own nuclear arsenal, it fears such weapons falling into the hands of hostile states. In 1981, when Saddam Hussein threatened to develop a nuclear capability, Israel launched a pre-emptive air strike to destroy Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.

Unilateral military action by Israel would be much harder against Iran's nuclear capability. Military jets would have to fly much greater distances, and the Iranians have spread their nuclear programs across a number of sites -- some located inside mountains.

Israeli military planners are nonetheless believed to have a number of options, including air strikes using American-designed bunker-busting munitions and commando raids.

Israel stressed that the threat of Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons was a danger to countries outside the region, including European nations in range of Iran's long-range missiles.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven a defiant successor to Mr. Khatami, a Western-leaning reformist who wanted to bring Tehran closer to the international community, repeatedly rejecting European Union efforts to persuade his country to curb its ambitions to enter the nuclear age.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments are "all the more troubling" given Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Canada does not believe that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear power solely to meet its energy needs. Like the United States, Canada believes Iran is secretly trying to develop a nuclear weapons program and that it should be brought before the United Nations Security Council.

"It is very important that all countries do stand up together to make sure that we do not accept that Iran continues a nuclear program," Mr. Pettigrew said.

He reiterated Canada's desire to see Iran taken before the Security Council. "Our patience has worn thin," Mr. Pettigrew said. "This kind of comment made by the President ... given the fact that they have those nuclear ambitions, makes us even more preoccupied and concerned."

© National Post 2005
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 2 Cdo on October 27, 2005, 14:35:31
I can't wait for the apologists to appear and somehow blame Isreal and the US for this asinine statement. :threat: Maybe the Isrealis should just step up and deal with this threat. But then we would have people say they didn't have the UN's approval ::) and that attacking Iran is illegal! ::)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Weiner on October 27, 2005, 14:56:37
I'm not too tuned into the political situation, so I was wondering if this is anything new.   It seems like a really gutsy move to me and I'm wondering if the message is skewed a little (like they really meant that they need to destroy their policies, not actually a message saying they need to obliterate Isreal and America).

Unless I am really underestimating the man.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: jmackenzie_15 on October 27, 2005, 16:10:34
Its only a matter of time now  :threat:

If Iran launched an offensive against Israel, how well prepared is the rest of the world to respond anyway? The US is obviously fairly tied up in Iraq.. England has alot of committments as well...

Would they have to pull troops out of other places and place priority on Iran, or do they have the manpower to still fight an effective war against Iran while maintaining current troop strength everywhere else they are comitted?
I wouldnt think so, but I could be wrong.

I dont think Iran could pick a better time to do something like this.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Old Ranger on October 27, 2005, 16:19:34
Have you meet any MASAD?

Israel is not a simple push over, although they have a very good "Help Us" campain.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Goldsmith on October 27, 2005, 16:53:07
Quote
I was wondering if this is anything new.  It seems like a really gutsy move to me and I'm wondering if the message is skewed a little (like they really meant that they need to destroy their policies, not actually a message saying they need to obliterate Isreal and America).
Standard sabre-rattling, we've heard this all before. And yes, they do literally call for the absolute destruction of Israel. What I find about this story so interesting is why its news worthy, probably because Sharon is using the media scrutiny of Iran to call for Iran's removal from the UN. Not going to happen.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Infanteer on October 27, 2005, 17:05:21
Considering Iran has got Western forces on two flanks, I don't think it's going anywhere soon.  Israel would love a reason to send Merkava's westward, pushing its enemies along the whole way.

What would be the opposite of "push them into the sea"?  Push them into the Hindu-Kush?  Push them into India? :akimbo:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Goldsmith on October 27, 2005, 17:21:03
Yeah its an interesting situation, Iran flanked by Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraq flanked by Iran and Syria.

Iran-Syria Mutual self Defence pact
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1416319,00.html
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Infanteer on October 27, 2005, 17:24:15
Syria flanked by Israel and Iraq (and Turkey?).  Don't forget a couple million Indians who are just looking for an excuse to go into Dar al-Islam.  All the makings of a nice 1914 scenario....
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wils21 on October 27, 2005, 17:44:16
Just a little background on some of the politics of our friend.

In practice, the control of foreign policy, nuclear policy, and the main economic policies were already within the power of the supreme leader. From the beginning, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei wanted Ahmadinejad to be the next president because he did not want an equal partner or rival as president. The presidency was the last holdout of Iran's reformists, and the victory of Ahmadinejad gave total control of Iran's state institutions to hard-liners. Khamenei controlled the Parliament, the judiciary, the army, radio and television, and now he will be able to control the presidency as well. The conservative political establishment made a decision late in the campaign to support Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, more closely tied to Khamenei than either Rafsanjani or Khatami, is unlikely to challenge the Guardian Council, particularly given the alleged Guardians Council support for his presidential bid.

Ahmadinejad was perhaps the most conservative of the seven candidates who were permitted to compete in the presidential race. The Rafsanjani campaign attempted to stick Ahmadinejad with the label of an extremist, intent on rolling back reform. They called Ahmadinejad a fundamentalist who is probably taking Iran back to some kind of Taliban-style of governing. Reformists charged that an element of the Revolutionary Guard is violating prohibitions agains military involvement in politics by mobilizing votes for Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad, an unabashed conservative, resurrected the fervor of the 1979 Islamic Revolution during the campaign by saying Iran "did not have a revolution in order to have democracy, but to have an Islamic government." Ahmadinejad had a bloody background. He was responsible for the execution of hundreds of dissidents after the war.

Ahmadinejad said in an 08 June 2005 interview on state broadcasting that he favored relations with all other countries on the basis of respect. He said relations with immediate neighbors were the most important, followed by countries that were once part of the Persian Empire. Then come Muslim states, and last but not least, states that are not hostile to Iran. Turning to the United Nations, Ahmadinejad said its structure is "one-sided, stacked against the world of Islam."

The three most prominent new members of Ahmadinejad's government are all known for their conservative views:


Manouchehr Mottaki, foreign minister, is a former ambassador to Japan and Turkey who has strongly backed Iran's nuclear programme and supported the move to resume uranium conversion

Mostafa Pourmohammadi, interior minister, is a hardline former deputy intelligence minister

Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehei, intelligence minister, is an Islamic cleric thought to be an opponent of press freedom.
All three men are understood to be followers of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Just two clerics were named to the cabinet, and no women were appointed.

Sounds to me like hes set himself up nicely.  Noone to undermine his authority.  Complete control.  This may be a more serious situation then people choose to admit.

For more info: www.globalsecurity.org



Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Slim on October 27, 2005, 17:58:28
Quote
We believe that Iran is trying to buy time so it can develop a nuclear bomb," said Mr. Shalom. "Iran is a clear and present danger."

Whoops...Iran is now at the centre of a very accurate and dangerous weapons site!

I would never want to hear those words aimedat me by such a capable nation as Isreal
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on October 28, 2005, 00:32:20
Israel can hold it's own. If Israel so desired Iran would no longer be able to consider itself "developing" (the technological disparities between Israel and Iran are even more pronounced than they were between Israel and Egypt/Syira in '76).

I am just amazed that someone who is a "democratically" (heh) elected leader would say that towards another nation. The amount of ignorance is just astounding. Modern states really don't do such things (what does that say about Iran)?

Bah!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Marauder on October 28, 2005, 00:49:46
Quote
Germany called his comments "completely unacceptable," and France "firmly condemned them."

Ahhh, the Axis of Weasels offering tepid, backhand condemnation of the Axis of Evil. Good to know some things will stay forever constant. I would put down good money that the only time the UN would ever invade any country in a timely fashion would be if Isreal started kicking some *** in the name of self defence.

On topic, how do you say "Get Some" in Hebrew?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on October 28, 2005, 01:00:09
On topic, how do you say "Get Some" in Hebrew?

I believe you use the initials "IRBM"
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: daniel h. on October 28, 2005, 16:56:28
I realize many believe that the U.S. and/or Israel were lookaing for an excuse to go to war with Iran....now they don't even need an excuse. Especially considering the many marchers in support of this guy the next day. Is Iran asking to be attacked or what? Iran reportedly does NOT have nuclear weapons, so why would the guy say this? Is he that out of touch? Even if you feel this way, why say it out loud?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CBH99 on October 29, 2005, 07:29:04
Iran doesn't really have to worry about the US or Allied forces at its borders.

Iran knows, just like the US and NATO does, that NATO and the US are too pre-occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan to mount a credible offensive.  Yes, US Forces are in Iraq right now, neighbouring Iran - but an offensive would require that US Forces relocate themselves, and this can't happen with the current political and security situation there.

This isn't anything new.  Sabre rattling, just like always.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Slim on October 29, 2005, 13:39:57
Iran doesn't really have to worry about the US or Allied forces at its borders.

Iran knows, just like the US and NATO does, that NATO and the US are too pre-occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan to mount a credible offensive.   Yes, US Forces are in Iraq right now, neighbouring Iran - but an offensive would require that US Forces relocate themselves, and this can't happen with the current political and security situation there.

This isn't anything new.   Sabre rattling, just like always.

What would an offensive in Iran get, except a population that absolutely hated the USA even more...Its not like anything can actually be done with the country, is it?

Does anyone know of a pro-West influence struggling to come out over there?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: paracowboy on October 29, 2005, 16:05:45
Does anyone know of a pro-West influence struggling to come out over there?
I don't know if they're "pro-west" per se, but there is strong ground-swell for reform amongst the youth. In fact, this is seen in some parts as the reason for the crack-down by the hard-liners.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Slim on October 29, 2005, 16:11:04
I don't know if they're "pro-west" per se, but there is strong ground-swell for reform amongst the youth. In fact, this is seen in some parts as the reason for the crack-down by the hard-liners.

Oh that's just great...Weren't the STUDENTS the ones who wanted the hardliners in in the first place?!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: paracowboy on October 29, 2005, 16:55:13
Oh that's just great...Weren't the STUDENTS the ones who wanted the hardliners in in the first place?!
not these students. Their parents.
The times, they are a changin'. To everything, there is a season. Smoke on the water (sorry, wrong song.)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Kernewek on October 30, 2005, 00:26:29
There is an armoured force of rebels that roams on the desert. I've only heard of them on the news, however, sorry.

However, Iran has sizeable minorities of Azeris, Zoroastrians and Bahai'is, the later two being rather small, but may like not having an oppressive Islamic government govern them.

not these students. Their parents.
The times, they are a changin'. To everything, there is a season. Smoke on the water (sorry, wrong song.)

Aye, I go to school with many people from Iran. I onced asked a friend what he thought of the Ayatollah - "he's worse than the shah". They may not be counter-revolutionaries (though one of them claims to have desecrated a copy of the Qu'ran), but it's an indication, perhaps a more realistic one of Iranian youth, compared to those mass rallies with those "down with Israel" tees and burqhas.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: KevinB on October 30, 2005, 21:15:10
Some of the academic students are definetly pro-reform (whatever that means in that neighnourhood) - but a lot of disenfranchised youth is lookign for a scapegoat - and the hardliners are going to use them and Israel as a rallying cry.

 Just when I figured Syria was next on the mapquest people to visit.  ;)

Though Israel will nuke them to glass if they get frisky so...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: bubba on November 06, 2005, 10:41:47
10 to 1 says Isreal kicks there *** in 30 days or less,IF they start throwin knuckles...any takers!!! ;) :o
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: jmackenzie_15 on November 06, 2005, 10:49:37
I think the fuze on the mideast powderkeg just got a wee bit shorter.


Im inclined to agree.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Old Ranger on November 07, 2005, 01:47:44
10 to 1 says Isreal kicks there *** in 30 days or less,IF they start throwin knuckles...any takers!!! ;) :o

How bout 7 days, or dare I say 6.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on December 09, 2005, 18:06:26
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051208-092511-8567r.htm

Iran with nuclear weapons may well accelerate armageddon. Pre-emptive strike may not solve the problem but it will delay it and cost them billions and hopefully there will be a revolution.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: jmackenzie_15 on December 09, 2005, 18:12:46
I can't beleive theyve gone this long with all trash their president is talking and nothing has happened yet.

He was shooting off about the jews in another article, and questioned whether or not the holocaust even happened. If somebody told my country they were going to wipe us off the map, I would take that threat as 1 step down from being invaded.

Israel will have dropped the ball if they allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons. No good can come of this, at all.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on December 10, 2005, 01:39:36
Its not like they (Israel) haven't launched a preemptive attack to stave off nuclear proliferation before.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Infanteer on December 11, 2005, 22:41:37
Looks like Israel has replied in kind.  Perhaps the pegging of an rough timeline of when to expect preemption by IDF forces will cool the rhetoric down a notch in Tehran.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47848

Quote
WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS
Israel plans strike
on nuclear Iran
Sharon tells military to prepare
for attack on key sites in March

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 11, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered his defense forces to plan for a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities by the end of March - the time intelligence sources say Tehran will be able to begin producing nuclear weapons.

The directive came after Iran's President Mahmoud Amadinejad this week suggested Israel should be moved to Europe.

Iran has been ignoring warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency about its plans to continue enriching uranium.

In early March, Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was "losing patience" with Iran.

Defense sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the "point of no return," after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.

"Israel - and not only Israel - cannot accept a nuclear Iran," Sharon warned recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."

The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defense ministry to the chief of staff, according to a report today in the London Sunday Times.

Israeli intelligence has reportedly identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the IAEA, according to the Times.

If a military operation is approved, Israel will reportedly use a combination of air and ground forces against several nuclear targets in the hope of stalling Tehran's nuclear program for years..

The Times reports Israel would likely call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refueling.

Russia last week signed an estimated $1 billion contract to sell Iran advanced Tor-M1 systems capable of destroying guided missiles and laser-guided bombs from aircraft.

"Once the Iranians get the Tor-M1, it will make our life much more difficult," an Israeli air force source told the Times. "The installation of this system can be relatively quick and we can't waste time on this one."
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on December 11, 2005, 23:31:46
If a strike is to occur it must happen before the Bushehr site is fueled otherwise you risk spreading radioactivity all over. The real problem is hitting the enrichment facilities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on December 11, 2005, 23:49:09
The "Real" real problem is no one knows what "other" facilities exist, although it is strongly suspected the Iranians dispersed many of their sites and facilities to prevent being rudely pre empted. It is also strongly suspected that many of the facilities have been hardened or moved into deep underground tunnels and bunkers. Doing a pre emptive strike with nuclear weapons to ensure you destroy or neutralize such facilities is probably asking for far more trouble than its worth.

There is also the final problem, as outlined in the movie "The Usual Suspects":

Kujan: "Keyser Soze was standing right there. Why didn't you shoot him?"

Verbal: "I couldn't. What if I missed?"

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on December 12, 2005, 14:24:55
I wonder if it is possible to strike a nuclear plant with tactical nukes but have it seem like a conventional attack as the destruction and nuclear fallout of the plant would possibly mask the tac nuke?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on December 12, 2005, 14:58:18
The nuclear release of high energy thermal and ionizing radiation is very distinctive, and can be reliably recorded with various means, including siesmographs (distinctive trace unlike an earthquake), radios (sudden wash of static over the airwaves as the EMP pulse moves past) and various sensors in the air and space. An atomic explosion is like nothing else, and unless this can somehow be disguised as an industrial accident ("It looks like Hassan forgot to engage the saftey when he wired up the firing circuit...."), there will be no ambiguity as to what happened or who did it.

Why we are now in this predicament?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/singer200512120837.asp

Quote
Israel vs. Iran
Can the international community get in on this fight?

By Saul Singer

What a perfect arrangement: The only country that every country has a right to condemn can be relied upon to do the world's dirty work. This is the underlying mindset as the West contemplates a nuclear Iran.

When push comes to shove, the Israeli air force will take care of the problem, so the world can go into spasms of righteous indignation while enjoying the fireworks.

There are, however, a number of flies in the ointment of this convenient scenario. Journalists and policymakers, like generals, tend to fight the last war, so everyone has in mind the 1981 Osirak operation, where Israel dealt a fatal blow to Saddam Hussein's dreams of mass destruction by destroying his nuclear reactor. But the Iranians are not idiots, and they have taken into account the possibility of an Israeli air strike in designing their program.

A new report by the U.S. Army War College, with a chapter on Israel drafted by former IDF Brig.-Gen. Shlomo Brom, finds that Israel cannot launch a sustained air campaign that will reliably destroy a series of hardened, well-defended, and dispersed targets. In order to avoid the airspace of intermediate countries, Israeli aircraft would have to fly more than 900 miles â ” refueling over the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

But let's say, by some miracle, it could be done. And let's even say, as Brom speculates, that Iran would not be able to tell Hezbollah to launch the thousands of missiles pointed at Israel's north because Israel would retaliate against Syria, possibly toppling that regime.

Still, the question remains, why is little Israel being left to fight the world's war? The answer is not just that life's unfair. The real answer is that the enlightened post-modern European refusal to lift a finger â ” let alone a gun â ” to defend itself is consigning us all to a dark age of terrorism and war.

The irony here is that it is precisely those who claim to believe most in a borderless world ruled by international law who are ushering in a new Hobbesian era. How is one to explain Europe's obsession with the United Nations on the one hand, and its emasculation of the principles on which that organization was founded?

If Europe, through the U.N. and in partnership with the U.S., simply followed the U.N. Charter, we would be living in a very different world today. That charter (Ch. 1, Art. 1, Para. 1, first sentence) states the U.N.'s purpose: "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace..." (emphasis added).

Does this ring any bells? Is there a state that is a greater threat to international peace than Iran? How much terrorism does a state have to sponsor, how many member states does it have to threaten with destruction, and how far does it have to get in obtaining the ultimate means to carry out such threats before the collective obligations of free nations under the Charter are remembered?

The nations that wrap themselves most tightly in international law are actually those responsible for turning that law, and its aspirations for the world, into a dead letter. As in the case of Iraq, by refusing to join the U.S. in effective non-military collective action against Iran, Europe is making military action or an Iranian victory inevitable.

It is in this context that I found it difficult to watch European ambassadors placing a wreath on the spot where a suicide bomber killed five Israelis, including 38-year-old Eliya Rozen, outside a mall in Netanya. On Tuesday, at his wife's funeral, Gadi Rozen spoke of their three childrens' questions when he told them their mother was dead. Roi, the five-year-old asked, "Who will be my mother?"

What wreath will these ambassadors lay if Israel gets hit by a nuclear weapon? Or if Israelis are killed in a war to destroy Iran's nuclear program? Or if 9/11s continue to multiply, including in Europe, because al Qaeda enjoys the tailwind that a nuclear Iran would bring?

Perhaps it is pointless to appeal to European sympathies for Israel when these same nations won't even defend themselves. Most bizarre, however, is that Europe, by refusing to impose draconian sanctions on Iran, is guaranteeing either a huge victory for the terror network or military action by the US or Israel. In other words, under the cloak of international law, Europe is bringing either the aggression of its enemies or unilateralist defensive actions of exactly the sort it claims to most want to prevent.

Those diplomats, no doubt, had the best of intentions. But with all due respect, spare us the wreaths. Join us and defend yourselves. We are not your hired hitmen; don't depend on us to save you. Take your beloved international law seriously and throw the book at Iran.

It may not be too late, with common will, to force Iran to back down without firing a shot. And if it is too late for peaceful means, that shot should be fired together, legally, in the name of international peace and security.

â ” Saul Singer is editorial-page editor of the Jerusalem Post and author of Confronting Jihad: Israel's Struggle and the World After 9/11. This piece first appeared in the Jerusalem Post and is reprinted with permission.   
 
  http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/singer200512120837.asp
       

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Baloo on December 13, 2005, 19:55:42

   
Quote
The Sunday Times - World

The Sunday Times    December 11, 2005

Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington
ISRAEL'S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.

The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.

Iran's stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern.

The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was "losing patience" with Iran.

A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda and the issue now was: "What next?" That question would have to be answered in the next few months, he said.

Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the "point of no return" after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.

"Israel - and not only Israel - cannot accept a nuclear Iran," Sharon warned recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."

The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defence ministry to the chief of staff. Sources inside special forces command confirmed that "G" readiness - the highest stage - for an operation was announced last week.

Gholamreza Aghazadeah, head of the Atomic Organisation of Iran, warned yesterday that his country would produce nuclear fuel. "There is no doubt that we have to carry out uranium enrichment," he said.

He promised it would not be done during forthcoming talks with European negotiators. But although Iran insists it wants only nuclear energy, Israeli intelligence has concluded it is deceiving the world and has no intention of giving up what it believes is its right to develop nuclear weapons.

A "massive" Israeli intelligence operation has been underway since Iran was designated the "top priority for 2005", according to security sources.

Cross-border operations and signal intelligence from a base established by the Israelis in northern Iraq are said to have identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the the IAEA.

Since Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, "it has been understood that the lesson is, don't have one site, have 50 sites", a White House source said.

If a military operation is approved, Israel will use air and ground forces against several nuclear targets in the hope of stalling Tehran's nuclear programme for years, according to Israeli military sources.

It is believed Israel would call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 - the equivalent of the SAS - and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refuelling.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html)

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: D-n-A on December 13, 2005, 20:05:30
If this happens, I wonder how all the Arab countries will react to Israel attacking Iran.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Redeye on December 13, 2005, 20:18:19
If this happens, I wonder how all the Arab countries will react to Israel attacking Iran.



Hard to say.  I'm not sure most of the Arab world are fans of Iran, but at the same time as they're united by religion in their attitude toward Israel it could nevertheless be problematic.  I'd have to admit that I wouldn't want to find out, but if Israel decides this is their course of action against Iran, it's not as though we have any ability to stop it!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bert on December 13, 2005, 20:31:40
I think for the civilian populations reading something like this is frightening food for thought. 
However, all governments prepare for various scenarios (disaster, military, economic) all the time
and this article may only state the obvious. I'm sure Iran has counter scenarios developed for
years and years.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Otto Fest on December 13, 2005, 21:04:00
Just read in Jane's that the Americans are improving the F15E by improving range and avionics.  This would make it an E'+' or even an F model.

First customer?  Israel.  They are also cooperating very closely improved anti missile technology such as a vastly improved patriot.

This is a scary road we're on.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: jmackenzie_15 on December 13, 2005, 21:37:36
Well Iran isnt showing any signs of backing down or stopping its nuclear production.... so...
something has to be done before they are nuclear capable..... right?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on December 14, 2005, 00:45:24
The Middle East isn't monolithic, and most Arabs consider the Iranians to be "Persians". There is also the religious aspect, the Saudis consider the Iranians to be heretics (and the favor is returned), while the Ba'athists are more interested in a secular sort of dictatorship.

While there will be the usual cries of outrage if Isreal is compelled to strike Iran, there will also be a few sighs of relief, and maybe a few indrawn breaths when people realize what Isreal is capable of.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Acorn on December 14, 2005, 01:33:32
The Middle East isn't monolithic, and most Arabs consider the Iranians to be "Persians". There is also the religious aspect, the Saudis consider the Iranians to be heretics (and the favor is returned), while the Ba'athists are more interested in a secular sort of dictatorship.

While there will be the usual cries of outrage if Isreal is compelled to strike Iran, there will also be a few sighs of relief, and maybe a few indrawn breaths when people realize what Isreal is capable of.

All Arabs consider the Iranians to be Persians (they certainly don't consider them to be Arabs - and Kurds are something else - Iranian or not). Some Shi'a Arabs may accept them as co-religionists, but Arabs in general believe they are the roots of the faith. The Persians came later.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on December 16, 2005, 11:50:46
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501428.html

Good article. Essentially the EU is unable to influence an Iran that is determined to obtain nuclear weapons. That leaves two options do nothing or strike. Thats all well and good for Europe or the US, but Israel cannot afford to sustain an Iranian first strike. The best defense is a good offense or so the adage goes. Israel was surprised in 73 when the arabs launched their Ramadan war and paid a high price as a result. Israel for its very survival must strike Iran's nuclear weapons program - if it can obtain the intelligence to do so.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: nULL on December 16, 2005, 13:33:54
If this happens, I wonder how all the Arab countries will react to Israel attacking Iran.



My guess is that there will be a great deal of condemnation, but very little action; "Arab nationalism" has never really resulted in a body capable of unified action. The Palestinian conflict showed that aside from rhetoric, the Arab nations did very little to aid their brethen; on the contrary, many of them used the situation to their advantage, seeing it as a way to gain both territory and prestige.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Baloo on December 16, 2005, 13:52:50
My guess is that there will be a great deal of condemnation, but very little action; "Arab nationalism" has never really resulted in a body capable of unified action. The Palestinian conflict showed that aside from rhetoric, the Arab nations did very little to aid their brethen; on the contrary, many of them used the situation to their advantage, seeing it as a way to gain both territory and prestige.

Something seems wrong with this. Maybe its the fact that Israel was involved in wars with multiple Arab nations in the Israeli War of Independence (1948 - 1949), the Six Day War (1967) the Yom Kippur War (1973), not to mention wars against Egypt in 1956 (Suez) and Syria in 1982 (Lebanon). Plus, the support many governments gave the Palesitinian Intifada, albeit only on a monetary, public relations level. Consecutive losses to the IDF pretty much limited what the Arabic neighbours could launch at the Israelis conventionally, and so have simply given in to supporting such groups as Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which has been effective on different levels, more so than their military campaigns. However, if the Arab states can find in Iran, a leader as they once did with Egypt to lead the rhetoric and stepped-up offensive, and they continue to see the United States military caught up in Iraq, I would not be surprised if certain states found renewed animosity.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Have Computer Problem on December 16, 2005, 14:08:00


They are also cooperating very closely improved anti missile technology such as a vastly improved patriot.

This is a scary road we're on.

It is called the Arrow-2 and it is a lot bigger than the PAC-III.

The Iranian president has also proposed that Israel should ''be mouved'' to Canada,US or Britain.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: nULL on December 16, 2005, 17:12:34
Something seems wrong with this. Maybe its the fact that Israel was involved in wars with multiple Arab nations in the Israeli War of Independence (1948 - 1949), the Six Day War (1967) the Yom Kippur War (1973), not to mention wars against Egypt in 1956 (Suez) and Syria in 1982 (Lebanon). Plus, the support many governments gave the Palesitinian Intifada, albeit only on a monetary, public relations level. Consecutive losses to the IDF pretty much limited what the Arabic neighbours could launch at the Israelis conventionally, and so have simply given in to supporting such groups as Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which has been effective on different levels, more so than their military campaigns. However, if the Arab states can find in Iran, a leader as they once did with Egypt to lead the rhetoric and stepped-up offensive, and they continue to see the United States military caught up in Iraq, I would not be surprised if certain states found renewed animosity.

Yes, Israeil was involved in wars with multiple Arabic nations - perhaps because all had something to gain? Egypt and Syria (to name but 2) could have been motivated into action to prevent Trans-jordan's King Abdullah from laying claim to the Arab parts of Palestine. I'm curious as to why you think Arab nationalism is such a strengthening force; many of the Palestinian refugees in those camps are there because of other Arab nations' unwillingness to absorb their "brethen".   
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 13, 2006, 11:10:27
The parameters are changing, this is no longer simply part of the regional theater in WW IV, but a real and present danger in its own right. Iran needs to be confronted and defanged of its nuclear ambitions, support for terrorism and explicit anti-Semetism sooner rather than later

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200601130837.asp

Quote
The Multilateral Moment?
Our bad and worse choices about Iran.

"Multilateralism good; preemption and unilateralism bad.”

For four years we have heard these Orwellian commandments as if they were inscribed above the door of Farmer Jones’s big barn. Now we will learn their real currency, since the Americans are doing everything imaginable — drawing in the Europeans, coaxing the Russians and Chinese to be helpful at the U.N., working with international monitoring agencies, restraining Israel, talking to the Arabs, keeping our jets in their hangars — to avoid precipitous steps against Iran.

Its theocracy poses a danger to civilization even greater than a nuclear North Korea for a variety of peculiar circumstances. Iran is free of a patron like China that might in theory exert moderate influence or even insist on occasional restraint. North Korea, for an increasingly wealthy and capitalist China, is as much a headache and an economic liability as a socialist comrade.

In contrast, Iran is a cash cow for Russia (and China) and apparently a source of opportunistic delight in its tweaking of the West. Iranian petro-wealth has probably already earned Tehran at least one, and probably two, favorable votes at the Security Council.

Of course, Tehran’s oil revenues allow it access to weapons markets, and overt blackmail, both of which are impossible for a starving North Korea. And Iran’s nuclear facilities are located at the heart of the world’s petroleum reserves, where even the semblance of instability can drive up global oil prices, costing the importing world billions in revenues.

No one is flocking to Communism, much less Pyongyang’s unrepentant, ossified Stalinist brand. Islamic radicalism, on the other hand, has declared war on Western society and tens of thousands of jihdadists, whether Shiia or Sunnis, count on Iran for money, sanctuary, and support. Al Qaeda members travel the country that is the spiritual godhead of Hezbollah, and a donor of arms and money to radical Palestinian terrorists.

North Korea can threaten Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and the western United States, and so poses a real danger. But the opportunities for havoc are even richer for a nuclear Iran. With nukes and an earned reputation for madness, it can dictate to the surrounding Arab world the proper policy of petroleum exportation; it can shakedown Europeans whose capitals are in easy missile range; it can take out Israel with a nuke or two; or it can bully the nascent democracies of the Middle East while targeting tens of thousands of US soldiers based from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf.

And Iran can threaten to do all this under the aegis of a crazed Islamist regime more eager for the paradise of the next world than for the material present so dear to the affluent and decadent West. If Iran can play brinkmanship now on just the promise of nuclear weapons, imagine its roguery to come when it is replete with them.

When a supposedly unhinged Mr. Ahmadinejad threatens the destruction of Israel and then summarily proceeds to violate international protocols aimed at monitoring Iran’s nuclear industry, we all take note. Any country that burns off some of its natural gas at the wellhead while claiming that it needs nuclear power for domestic energy is simply lying. Terrorism, vast petroleum reserves, nuclear weapons, and boasts of wiping neighboring nations off the map are a bad combination.

So we all agree on the extent of the crisis, but not on the solutions, which can be summarized by four general options.

First  is the ostrich strategy — see and hear no evil, if extending occasional peace feelers out to more reasonable mullahs. Hope that “moderates” in the Iranian government exercise a restraining influence on Mr. Ahmadinejad. Sigh that nuclear Iran may well become like Pakistan — dangerous and unpredictable, but still perhaps “manageable.” Talk as if George Bush and the Iranians both need to take a time out.

I doubt that many serious planners any longer entertain this passive fantasy, especially after the latest rantings of Ahmadinejad. Pakistan, after all, has some secular leaders, is checked by nuclear India, and has a recent past of cooperation with the United States. Most importantly, it is more than ever a lesson in past laxity, as the United States and Europe were proven criminally derelict in giving Dr. Khan and his nuclear-mart a pass — which may well come back to haunt us all yet.

Alternatively, we could step up further global condemnation. The West could press the U.N. more aggressively — repeatedly calling for more resolutions, and, ultimately, for sanctions, boycotts, and embargos, energizes our allies to cut all ties to Iran, and provides far more money to dissident groups inside Iran to rid the country of the Khomeinists. Ensuring that democracy works in Iraq would be subversive to the mullahs across the border. Some sort of peaceful regime change is the solution preferred by most — and, of course, can be pursued in a manner contemporaneous with, not exclusionary to, other strategies.

It is a long-term therapy and therefore suffers the obvious defect that Iran might become nuclear in the meantime. Then the regime’s resulting braggadocio might well deflate the dissident opposition, as the mullahs boast that they alone have restored Iranian national prestige with an Achaemenid bomb.

A third, and often unmentionable, course is to allow the most likely intended target of nuclear Iran, Israel, to take matters into its own hands. We know this scenario from the 1981 destruction of Saddam’s French-built Osirak nuclear reactor: the world immediately deplores such “unilateral” and “preemptory” recklessness, and then sighs relief that Israel, not it, put the bell on the fanged cat.

But 2006 is not 1981. We are in war with Islamic radicalism, at the moment largely near the Iranian border in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resulting furor over a “Zionist” strike on Shia Iran might galvanize Iraqi Shiites to break with us, rather than bring them relief that the Jewish state had eliminated a nearby nuclear threat and had humiliated an age-old rival nation and bitter former enemy. Thousands of Americans are in range of Iranian artillery and short-term missile salvoes, and, in theory, we could face in Iraq a conventional enemy at the front and a fifth column at the rear.

And Iran poses far greater risks than in the past for Israeli pilots flying in over the heart of the Muslim world, with 200-300 possible nuclear sites that are burrowed into mountains, bunkers and suburbs. Such a mission would require greater flight distances, messy refueling, careful intelligence, and the need to put Israeli forces on alert for an Iranian counterstrike or a terrorist move from Lebanon. Former Israeli friends like Turkey are now not so cordial, and the violation of Islamic airspace might in the short-term draw an ugly response, despite the eventual relief in Arab capitals at the elimination of the Iranian nuclear arsenal.

If the Israeli raids did not take out the entire structure, or if there were already plutonium present in undisclosed bunkers, then the Iranians might shift from their sickening rhetoric and provide terrorists in Syria and Lebanon with dirty bombs or nuclear devices to “avenge” the attack as part of a “defensive” war of “striking back” at “Israeli aggression”. Europeans might even shrug at any such hit, concluding that Israel had it coming by attacking first.

The fourth scenario  is as increasingly dreaded as it is apparently inevitable — a U.S. air strike. Most hope that it can be delayed, since its one virtue — the elimination of the Iranian nuclear threat — must ipso facto outweigh the multifaceted disadvantages.

The Shiite allies in Iraq might go ballistic and start up a second front as in 2004. Muslim countries, the primary beneficiaries of a disarmed Iran, would still protest loudly that some of their territories, if only for purposes of intelligence and post-operative surveillance, were used in the strike. After Iraq, a hit on Iran would confirm to the Middle East Street a disturbing picture of American preemptory wars against Islamic nations.

Experts warn that we are not talking about a Clintonian one-day cruise-missile hit, or even something akin to General Zinni’s 1998 extended Operation Desert Fox campaign. Rather, the challenges call for something far more sustained and comprehensive — perhaps a week or two of bombing at every imaginable facility, many of them hidden in suburbs or populated areas. Commando raids might need to augment air sorties, especially for mountain redoubts deep in solid rock.

The political heat would mount hourly, as Russia, China, and Europe all would express shock and condemnation, and whine that their careful diplomatic dialogue had once again been ruined by the American outlaws. Soon the focus of the U.N. would not be on Iranian nuclear proliferation, or the role of Europe, Pakistan, China, and Russia in lending nuclear expertise to the theocracy, but instead on the mad bomber-cowboy George Bush. We remember that in 1981 the world did not blame the reckless and greedy French for their construction of a nuclear reactor for Saddam Hussein, but the sober Israelis for taking it out.

Politically, the administration would have to vie with CNN’s daily live feeds of collateral damage that might entail killed Iranian girls and boys, maimed innocents, and street-side reporters who thrust microphones into stretchers of civilian dead. The Europeans’ and American Left’s slurs of empire and hegemony would only grow.

We remember the “quagmire” hysteria that followed week three in Afghanistan, and the sandstorm “pause” that prompted cries that we had lost Iraq. All that would be child’s play compared to an Iranian war, as retired generals and investigative reporters haggled every night on cable news over how many reactor sites were still left to go. So take for granted that we would be saturated by day four of the bombing with al Jazeera’s harangues, perhaps a downed and blindfolded pilot or two paraded on television, some gruesome footage of arms and legs in Tehran’s streets, and the usual Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer outtakes.

So where do these bad and worse choices leave us? Right where we are now — holding and circling while waiting for a break in the clouds.

Still, there are two parameters we should accept — namely, that Iran should not be allowed to arm its existing missiles with nukes and that Israel should not have to do the dirty work of taking out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The Europeans and the Americans right now must accelerate their efforts and bring the crisis to a climax at the Security Council to force China and Russia publicly to take sides. India, Pakistan, and the Arab League should all be brought in and briefed on the dilemma, and asked to go on record supporting U.N. action.

The public relations war is critical. Zen-like, the United States must assure the Europeans, Russians, and Arabs that the credit for a peaceful solution would be theirs. The lunacy of the Iranian president should provide the narrative of events, and thus be quoted hourly — as we remain largely silent.

Economically, we should factor in the real possibility that Iranian oil might be off the global market, and prepare — we have been here before with the Iranian embargo of 1979 — for colossal gasoline price hikes. This should also be a reminder that Ahmadinejad, Saddam, Hugo Chavez, and an ascendant and increasingly undemocratic Putin all had in common both petrodollar largess and desperate Western, Chinese, and Indian importers willing to overlook almost anything to slake their thirst. Unless we develop an energy policy that collapses the global oil price, for the next half-century expect every few years something far creepier than the Saudi Royals and Col. Moammar Gadhafi to threaten the world order.

The Democratic leadership should step up to the plate and, in Truman-esque fashion, forge a bipartisan front to confront Iran and make the most of their multilateral moment. If the Democrats feel they have lost the public’s confidence in their stewardship of national security, then the threat of Iran offers a Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, or John Kerry an opportunity to get out front now and pledge support for a united effort — attacking Bush from the right about too tepid a stance rather from the predictable left that we are “hegemonic” and “imperialistic” every time we use force abroad.

Finally, the public must be warned that dealing with a nuclear Iran is not a matter of a good versus a bad choice, but between a very bad one now and something far, far worse to come.

Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200601130837.asp
       

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Eagle Eye View on January 13, 2006, 11:37:13
Interesting, really good post
thanks!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on January 13, 2006, 11:48:43
A nuclear Iran under the mullah's are a definite threat to not only their neighbors but to the west. But what do ? Do nothing and hope for the best ? Or a military operation to neuter the Iranian nuclear program ? Both options have alot of risk. By doing nothing the west ends up being reactive to whatever  Iranian ambitions are played out. Recently they are selling their oil for Euro's instead of dollars. Israel has been threatened with annihilation if they launch nuclear strikes on Israel there are a whole set of unknowns we are facing, including the biblical setting for armageddon.

On the other hand a military surgical strike to take out Iran's nuclear facilities present other problems. The facilities are well dispersed, can we take all of them out ? After any attack the Iranian's might shut down the straight of hormuz. They might also launch an offensive into Iraq to attack coalition forces. For these reasons I think that the military option will not limit itself to Iran's nuclear facilities but also to the IRG and to the security apparatus that enables the mullah's to rule. The leadership does not feel the army is reliable so we might avoid that as a target. The Iranian leadership would also be targeted. Finally we might take out key oil/gas targets or a naval blockade to strangle their economy. I dont like the options its the classic damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 17, 2006, 00:34:48
Long article, follow the link to " The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented"

http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanadianBoy92(banned) on January 21, 2006, 01:51:26
Sounds like another Gulf war stirring up :(
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 21, 2006, 03:53:45
How close are they really to getting the bomb? They seem determined to bring war to the West, can they?

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007986.php

Quote
Our Darkening Sky: Iran and the War
by Joe Katzman at January 20, 2006 06:14 AM

    "I tell you naught for your comfort,
    Yea, naught for your desire,
    Save that the sky grows darker yet
    And the sea rises higher.

    Night shall be thrice night over you,
    And heaven an iron cope.
    Do you have joy without a cause,
    Yea, faith without a hope?"
      -- G.K. Chesterton, The Ballad of the White Horse

In the wake of Tom Holsinger's article "The Case For Invading Iran," I was going to enter a comment, but it became long enough to deserve a full post. To begin with, it's time to lay my own cards on the table.

I personally believe that we're very likely to see at least 10 million dead in the Middle East within the next two decades, with an upper limit near 100 million. I do not believe pre-emptive action will be taken against Iran. I do, however, believe the extremist mullahs in Iran mean exactly what they say. They are steeped in an ideology that believes suicide/murder to be the holiest and most moral act possible. They have been diligent in laying strategic plans for an offensive Islamic War against Israel, America and the West. Plans backed by 25 years of action, and stated no less clearly than Mein Kampf. I believe that Ahmedinajad's talk of 12th Imam end-times and halos around his head at the UN aren't the ravings of an isolated nut, simply an unusually public (and unusually noticed) expression of beliefs that are close to mainstream within their ruling class. That class of "true believer" imams and revolutionary guard types have been quietly consolidating their control over all sectors of Iranian society over the last few months, and I do not believe anyone in the world today has both the will and the capability to stop them. A key pillar of The Bush Doctrine is about to fail.

At some point within the next decade, therefore, I believe that they will not only have nuclear weapons, but that they will act to make good on their stated beliefs and plans. With eventual "3 Conjectures" level results as noted above. I hope you're all invested in solar, folks, and have some panels up on your houses.

It gets worse.

follow the link and read the rest.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on January 21, 2006, 23:32:41
To answer the question about repelling an attack.

Not if the sun rises four or five times before 0900h  ;)

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on January 31, 2006, 13:37:22
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hawkins200601310811.asp

Quote
Making China PayTo get at Iran and North Korea, we’ll have to go through Beijing.

By William R. Hawkins

The looming crisis over Iran's nuclear weapons program is turning attention to China's role as the protector of the two remaining "axis of evil" regimes. On January 9, the day before Iran removed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals at its uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, its deputy foreign minister Mehdi Safari met with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui in Beijing. The official Chinese statement was that "Zhang reiterated the principled position of the Chinese side on properly settling the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiation. Safari briefed Zhang about the views and considerations of the Iranian side in this respect." It is hard not to suspect that the meeting was to clear Tehran's impeding action with Beijing.

After the news broke, foreign-ministry spokesman Kong Quan told reporters on Jan. 10, "We believe that the Iranian nuclear issue should be resolved within the framework of IAEA. In the current context, the most feasible approach is still the negotiation between the three EU countries and Iran." Beijing knows that two years of EU talks have gone nowhere. Beijing also knows that talking is the alternative to acting. As long as the only country acting is Iran, Tehran will prevail.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

Weeks earlier, Chinese officials pledged to veto any U.S. or European attempt to impose U.N. sanctions on Iran, particularly any involving an embargo on oil shipments or energy development. In 2004, Iran agreed in principle to sell China 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over 30 years, a deal valued at $70 billion. China already imports 14 percent of its oil from Iran. Sinopec, a state-owned energy company, hopes to develop Iran's enormous Yadavaran oil field. These deals violate the U.S. Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which penalizes foreign companies for investing more than $20 million in Iran. China will not hesitate to oppose (or violate) similar sanctions if imposed by the U.N. or by a U.S.-EU coalition.

Other sanctions, such as bans on the sale to Iran of high-tech products or military gear, will also not be acceptable to Beijing. Iran is a growing market for its manufacturing exports, which China uses to pay for Iranian oil. Indeed, Beijing would like to use the crisis to cut into Europe's trade with Iran, a factor that will dampen the eagerness of the EU to levy its own sanctions on Iran.

China has also been "hosting" the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear program. As does Tehran, Pyongyang acts while everyone else just talks — or prepares to talk. There have been only four actual rounds of negotiations since the process started in August 2003, and no progress. Beijing's insistence on a "diplomatic solution" is code for its opposition to any use of pressure or sanctions against North Korea.

So before there can be effective pressure on Iran or North Korea, there must be pressure on China. Beijing is very dependent on exports to the American market as the primary engine of its rapid economic growth. China's trade surplus with the United States in 2004 was $162 billion and probably topped $200 billion in 2005. There is also a considerable flow of American capital and technology into China. These flows give Washington considerable leverage, which Beijing is well aware of. Indeed, on December 12, the State Council of the People's Republic of China published a white paper entitled "China's Peaceful Development Road" which sought to insulate economic issues from diplomatic issues. Yet, when this same paper proclaims "the principle economic target is to double the 2000 per-capita GDP by 2010," the implications for such an increase in the resources available to the Beijing regime cannot be ignored in other capitals, and not just in Washington.

Beijing's claim in "Peaceful Development" that it will never turn its increasing wealth into international power is no more credible than the claims it has made in other white papers issued in 2005. The list includes: "Building a Political Democracy in China" (October); "China's Endeavors for Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation" (September); "New Progress in China's Protection of Intellectual Property Rights" (April); and "China's Progress in Human Rights" (April).

Making Our Money Talk

There is growing support for doing something to pressure Beijing to change its ways. Last year, when state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) tried to buy California-based Unocal Corp, the outcry on Capitol Hill ultimately forced CNOOC to withdraw its bid. The House of Representatives, in a healthy show of bipartisanship in foreign policy, passed a resolution declaring "a Chinese state-owned energy company exercising control of critical United States energy infrastructure and energy production capacity could take action that would threaten to impair the national security of the United States." This resolution passed by a vote of 398-15.

The strongest support for continued U.S. appeasement of Beijing has come from large American corporations which have invested in China. However, continued failure to protect intellectual property, the theft of which the U.S. Trade Representative's 2005 report on Chinese trade barriers called "epidemic," is causing many companies to rethink their bets on China as a market in which they will be allowed to thrive. The Heritage Foundation's 2005 Index of Economic Freedom ranked China a lowly 111 out of 161 countries (tied with Zambia and behind Pakistan), with property rights, foreign investment, regulation, and financial markets rated as typical of a "repressed" economy. American manufacturers and their congressional allies are also turning up the heat on Beijing's manipulation of international currency values.

American diplomats should advance the argument that Beijing needs to act more responsibly as a member of the global community to curb the dangerous behavior of Iran and North Korea. Unfortunately, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, who raised the "stakeholder" concept in regard to China's role in world affairs last September, apparently made no progress with Premier Wen Jiabao or other officials on the Iranian issue during his January 24 visit to Beijing. At his press conference after the talks, he dodged questions related to Iran, whereas the press conference conducted by the Chinese Foreign Ministry restated its previous position on negotiations with Tehran. Two days later, Ali Larijani, the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, arrived in Beijing to further coordinate diplomatic strategy. A former Revolutionary Guards leader, Larijani is Tehran's top negotiator on the nuclear issue.

As a former U.S. trade representative, Zoellick remains wedded to the notion that international economics can be divorced from international politics. This is clearly not a tenable concept, as shown by China's own strategic behavior. Beijing must be told that its continued easy access to global markets, upon which its rapid development depends, will be at risk if it continues to ally itself with rogue states that pose a threat to global security.

— William R. Hawkins is senior fellow for national-security studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council in Washington, D.C.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hawkins200601310811.asp
       


Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: The Gues-|- on February 07, 2006, 15:36:33
The approaching war with Iran: Part II
How real is the Iran nuclear threat to the United States?

January 19, 2006 – If you get your news from the Big Five, the global media conglomeration of Time Warner, The Walt Disney Company, Bertelsmann AG, Viacom, and News Corporation, which when combined control approximately 90% of the world’s headlines, than there is little doubt that you have been adequately primed with stories regarding Iran’s nuclear power ambitions and the threat that such ambitions represent to the United States.  Absent perspective though, these headlines amount to nothing more than fear-mongering hype intended to persuade Americans into supporting the Federal Reserve, U.S. Congress, and Bush Administration once again if they collectively decide that it’s necessary to launch yet another pre-emptive strike in the Middle East under flimsy, if not false pretenses.
 

The fact is that Iran wants nuclear power.  It wants to join a growing list of countries that already enjoy the benefits of nuclear power.  Which countries currently have nuclear power plants operating within their borders?  The list might surprise you.  Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States.  According to the Uranium Information Centre[1] there are a total of 441 operable reactors in these countries. 

 
Countries that are exploring or actively seeking nuclear power capabilities include Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam.  The countries that are known to have stockpiles of nuclear weapons are Russia, the United States, France, China, Great Britain, Pakistan, and India.  Israel is considered a de facto nuclear power by most observers, although it has long maintained that it will neither confirm nor deny whether it has nuclear weapons.  North Korea is suspected to have joined the list of nuclear powers in 2005.  South Africa once had nuclear weapons but has since reportedly destroyed the weapons, but not the capacity to manufacture them again if necessary.


Given the fact that nuclear power plants are currently operating in 31 countries with 7 more countries in pursuit of atomic energy, is it possible that the United States of America is honestly threatened by Iran seeking nuclear power capabilities?  And given the fact that there are currently approximately 31,000 nuclear warheads deployed or in reserve in the stockpiles of eight countries: China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is it plausibly that Iran, even if it had 20 nuclear warheads, wouldn’t be pulverized if it ever attempted to launch a nuclear weapon against the United States or any of our allies? Nuclear or not, Iran will never be a nuclear threat to the United States.   It is a mathematical improbability.  According to Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, of these 31,000 nuclear warheads, about 13,000 are deployed and 4,600 of these are on high alert, i.e. ready to be launched within minutes notice. The combined explosive yield of these weapons is approximately 5,000 megatons, which is about 200,000 times the explosive yield of the bomb used on Hiroshima.[2]   None of these nukes are in Tehran’s control.  With this perspective intact, is it possible that the United States of America is really threatened by Iran’s nuclear ambitions?  It does not seem possible, yet the propaganda machine is churning out battle cries daily that do not match reality.  That’s what propaganda is, words masquerading as news that defy and deny reality.


The truth be told, Iran’s current nuclear ambitions, whether for peaceful purposes or not, do not pose any greater threat to the United States then when Pakistan became a nuclear power in 1988.  Prior to Pakistan becoming a nuclear power, Muslim countries in the Middle East were surrounded by non-Muslim nuclear powers.  Therefore, beginning in 1970’s, Pakistan viewed the development of a nuclear bomb as its last resort and only defense against being invaded by India or the Soviet Union.  There are many historical indications that Pakistan was most likely correct in its assessment regarding the need to become a nuclear power.   In 1979, when Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, Pakistan feared becoming a future target of Soviet aggression.  To make matters worse, in 1980, Pakistan was told that the United States would not commit forces to defend Pakistan if the Soviet Union invaded.  This lack of support from the United States made any claimed alliance between Pakistan and the United States doubtful in the eyes of the Pakistani people, and only increased Pakistan’s urgent approach towards becoming a nuclear power. 

 
Although relations between Pakistan and the United States have improved significantly since September 11, 2001, it is a matter of fact that Pakistan played a vital roll in helping Iran and North Korea advance their nuclear programs during the 1990’s.  In other words, without Pakistan’s assistance, it is likely that the Iran nuclear hysteria would not be possible today.  Regardless of past cooperation between Pakistan and the nuclear pursuits of Iran and North Korea, the rhetoric suggesting that a future nuclear-powered Iran presents a clear and present danger to the Middle East and the United States simply cannot be substantiated when measured against the number of countries that currently operate nuclear power plants and the staggering amount of nuclear warheads stockpiled around the world that are controlled by the United States and its allies. 

 
The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States clearly demonstrated the positive power to be found in fearing a nuclear counterattack.  If either the Soviet Union or the United States would not have been a nuclear power during the Cold War, it is reasonable to suggest that the country possessing nuclear warheads would have invaded the one that did not, thus making the Cold War, hot.  The governments of India and Pakistan intensely distrust if not despise each other, but knowing that each side has nuclear weapons has restrained either side from launching all out invasions on the other ever since both became nuclear powers.  In both the Soviet Union vs. United States and India vs. Pakistan nuclear showdowns, President Ronald Reagan’s tactical strategy, “Peace through superior firepower” proved flexible enough to withstand being minimized to “Peace through similar firepower”, and remain a fundamental truth. 


It is worth noting that during the 1990’s, Pakistan considered Iran as its closest regional ally.  However, times have changed this alliance.  Iran is now a fundamental Shiite haven with a government to match.  Pakistan on the other hand is sliding toward an ideological Sunni state.  Shiites are outraged by Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States, with most viewing the Unites States / Pakistan relationship as an unholy alliance that amounts to nothing less than blasphemy.  If tensions between Iran and Pakistan escalate as expected, then Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon will mirror Pakistan’s urgency to develop a nuclear weapon in the 70’s and 80’s to defend itself against a nuclear India. 


Iran also knows what the world knows but Israel will not admit; that Israel is a nuclear power with an overwhelmingly decisive military advantage over Iran.  Iran might spout words of hate towards Israel, but they do not dare launch missiles, because unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t fight wars for oil.  It fights wars for survival, and will not hesitate destroying Iran’s oil reserves if it determines such military actions to be tactically advantageous. 

 
The bottom line is that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are well documented and have existed for more than two decades.  Pakistan played a vital role in advancing the nuclear capabilities of both Iran and North Korea in the 1990’s.  As Pakistan moves closer to the United States, and with 130,000 U.S troops in Iraq, Iran is being pushed into a weapon of last resort scenario similar to that of Pakistan when India became a nuclear power.  In January 2006, the Big Five media conglomeration has fired up the propaganda presses and aggressively started churning out the Iran Nuclear Threat headlines at an alarming pace, even though there is really nothing new about Iran’s 20-year-old nuclear ambitions.  When measured against the list of 31 countries that currently operate nuclear power plants, the 7 that are pursuing nuclear power, the 31,000 nuclear warheads already distributed around the world, the fact that Israel is a nuclear power, and the United States having 130,000 troops in neighboring Iraq while building permanent military installations faster than George Bush can say 9/11, nuclear or not, Iran is of no military consequence to the United States or Israel, and it will not be for generations to come, if ever. 


If Iran’s desire to have access to nuclear power is old news, which it is, then why is it being splashed as breaking headlines across the world?  Why now?  What has happened thus far in 2006 that was not happening in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005?  Did uranium enrichment equipment and facilities suddenly and surprisingly appear on the Iranian landscape?  Is Iran’s announcement that it has restarted its uranium enrichment research; the Big Five called it breaking the seals on its uranium enrichment equipment, which sounds vaporously spooky, when all it really means is that Iran unlocked the doors of the facilities that house the uranium enrichment equipment and turned the lights on once again; is this action an actual threat to the security of the United States of America?  No, it is not. 
 

So what is it?  What is Iran doing that has the Big Five, the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, U.S. Congress, and the Executive Branch Bushians urgently leading the misinformed American people down the road of “we found those weapons of mass destruction we were looking for in Iraq, in Iran”?   If Iran’s nuclear ambitions don’t add up to the propaganda, which it does not, what does? 


In a December 16, 2005 Associated Press article, President Bush said that Iran is a “real threat” to the United States and called on Tehran to “prove it does not seek nuclear weapons.”  Sound familiar?  Just a few years earlier, Bush challenged Iraq to prove it didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.  Saddem Hussein said that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.  But how do you prove you don’t have something?  Vilified and scorned U.N. Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter repeatedly told the Big Five that Iraq did not have active weapons of mass destruction programs prior to the Bushians launching its pre-emptive strike. 

 
The truth is that Iran stands about as much chance of convincing President Bush that they are not seeking nuclear weapons as the nineteen men and women convicted in 1692 by the Massachusetts Puritans for practicing witchcraft did in convincing the Puritans that they were not witches.   The Executive Branch Bushians know that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are of no real threat to the United States, but believe that Americans will take the nuclear threat bait.  Either way, the Executive Branch Bushians, along with the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, and the U.S. Congress, need this new lie to stick firmly in the minds of approximately half of the population of the United States so that it can go about the business of thwarting the real threat that Iran posed to the United States.  And yes, Iran does pose a real threat to the United States, a clear and present danger far worst than anything the Big Five is reporting.  Why the Big Five is not reporting on the real economical “nuclear bomb” that Iran already possesses serves as evidence to the intuitive American that this unspoken threat is absolutely real.  In March 2006, Iran will break the seals on its Iran Oil Bourse. 

 
If you are not familiar with the Iran Oil Bourse, you need to Google it promptly.  Thankfully, many reporters, commentators, and scholars that operate in the 10% zone not controlled by the Big Five have wrote outstanding articles and analysis regarding the true implications of the Iran Oil Bourse.  In fact, there seems to be a new article on the subject, released daily.  On January 15, 2006, Krassimir Petov, Ph. D. wrote The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse.  His analysis: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.  His qualifications: Petrov received his Ph.D. in economics from Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria.  In his article, Petov recommends reading two works by William Clark: The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War in Iraq, and The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target. 

 
Here are the key points made by Krassimir Petov, Ph. D. in his report: The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse.


·         The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire

·         The weapon is the Iran Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006

·         With the opening of the Iran Oil Bourse:

o        Europeans will no longer have to buy and hold U.S. Dollars in order to secure payment for oil.  They will be able to purchase oil with their own currencies, the euro.

o        The Chinese and Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the Iran Oil Bourse because it will allow them to drastically reduce their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the U.S. Dollar.

o        Russians have an inherent economic interest in adopting the euro because the bulk of its trade is with European countries

o        The Arab-oil exporting countries also need to diversify against the rising mountains of U.S. debt notes – the depreciating dollar

 
What the Iran Oil Bourse means to the average American is that suddenly, hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars will become unwanted around the world.  In essence, the money supply will double or triple.  When supply outweighs demand, prices go down – except when dealing with currency.  When money supply exceeds demand, prices go up.  Its called inflation – the hidden tax brought to the U.S. taxpayer courtesy of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel and our friends in the U.S. Congress.  Imagine if every Americans income doubled in next week’s paycheck.  Do you think prices for goods and services would decrease, remain the same, or increase?  If you think they would decrease or remain the same, can I interest you in a hot stock I’m selling called Enron? 


Another way to think about the U.S. dollar is in terms of a company stock.  Speaking of Enron, when the truth about this company’s finances hit the street, what happened to the value of the stock?  It plummeted.  Why?  In theory, the news of false financials didn’t directly cause the stock value to drop.   It dropped because there were more sellers than buyers.  From its highs of $90 per share, Enron quickly became worthless in the span of a few weeks.  Everyone who held shares of Enron, simultaneously sold their stock, and there was nobody willing to buy the shares.  The situation with the U.S. dollars is very similar.  If enough people and countries stop holding U.S. dollars, the value of the dollar in your wallet will plummet.  The greenback will go the way of the Continental.  In 1775 the Continental Congress authorized the issuance of paper money to finance the American War for Independence. These notes, known as "Continentals," would be redeemable only after the colonies won their independence. Overprinted and distrusted by the public, they declined rapidly in value, giving rise to the popular expression "not worth a Continental."

 
So what are the real options that the United States of America has to protect its security and financial stability?  Option A is to believe the Big Five propaganda machine financed by the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel that prints our funny money, and take our chances with invading Iran to thwart the March 2006 launch of the Iran Oil Bourse.  To some that might sound appealing, but such action will not change the fact that our federal government has been operating on a Federal Reserve credit card, which has no credit limit, for so long that We the People now have a $8 trillion dollar national debt.  The Federal Reserve Banking Cartel loves this enormous debt because it represents interest payments from the U.S. taxpayer to its network of private corporations.  The ability of the federal government to tax incomes, on behalf of the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, before the wage earner ever receives his or her paycheck, makes hard-working men and women slaves to the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel.  The U.S. Congress supports using the citizenry as collateral for its wayward spending, for without the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel accepting as collateral, the birth certificates of American citizens and the potential, future taxable wages that they represent, the federal government could no longer finance its 1174 federal agencies and the payroll associated with 4.3 federal employees. 


Option B is to abolish the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 immediately, eliminate seventy-five percent of the 1174 federal agencies and the millions of federal mandates they represent, seize all gold held by the banking cartel, allow the cartel member’s financial institutions to collapse while forgiving all debt owed to the cartel, return the printing and coining of money to the U.S. Treasury, eliminate fractional and fiat money schemes, and return our currency to a commodity backed system such as gold and silver.  Finally, there is need to amend the Constitution of the United States of America so as to abolish the 16th Amendment and add language that would prevent the federal government of the United States from deficit spending or operating with a national debt ever again. 


There really are no other options, and March 2006 is fast approaching.  This is not a doomsday scenario.  It is fact.  The fiat money scheme run by the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel is about to collapse.  Meanwhile the President of the United States, the U.S. Congress, Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, and the Big Five media conglomeration are so fearful of the court of public opinion in the United States, that they will not even utter the words, Iran Oil Bourse. 
 

On a personal note: I have two sons, ages 18 and 15.  I myself am a veteran who served ten years in the United States Marine Corps.  Arguably, we are all hawks.  There are wars worth fighting, and there remain causes worth dying for in defense of the United States of America.  Sustaining the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, a failed fiat money scheme, and a federal government out of control, is not one of them.  Fighting against the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, a failed fiat money scheme, and a federal government out of control, is. 


It’s time for the We the People of these United States to spread the word and truth regarding the real threat Iran poses to the United States, and act boldly to fix our own government and money system so that we no longer are required to fight wars to maintain the stability of our own currency. 

http://www.teamliberty.net/id215.html
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: JasonH on February 07, 2006, 15:58:32
Washington officials have already stated that Iran has the ability to produce the deliverance and the nuclear arms.  So they are rip roaren ready to rock.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: SoF on February 07, 2006, 16:29:24
Well being of Iranian descent I'd like to say that the people of Iran have been bullied around by their government for 27 years and as much as I'd like to see some good change, the U.S. will not bring any. Bush just wants to blow the country to smithereens and build himself a big ol' gas station.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: mo-litia on February 07, 2006, 17:51:24
Well being of Iranian descent I'd like to say that the people of Iran have been bullied around by their government for 27 years and as much as I'd like to see some good change, the U.S. will not bring any. Bush just wants to blow the country to smithereens and build himself a big ol' gas station.

That, in a nutshell, is Bush's entire foreign policy.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 07, 2006, 18:07:47
The nuclear threats theorized to exist from countries like North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan having nuclear arms are not predominantly from the states themselves but from the acquisition of nuclear weapons by non-state actors (IE terrorists) through such states, either through theft, coup, purchase, or "gifts". I don't think that threat is really as serious or extant as people make it out to be - the culpability, especially nowadays, of the states involved would be nearly as much as if they'd employed the weapons themselves. The pursuit of nuclear weapons, especially by states such as North Korea and Iran, seems to me to have more to do with creating a viable deterrent to the perceived threat from the US and/or other powers than it has to do with expansionism or aggression from the newly nuclear state.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: KevinB on February 07, 2006, 18:27:37
The pursuit of nuclear weapons, especially by states such as North Korea and Iran, seems to me to have more to do with creating a viable deterrent to the perceived threat from the US and/or other powers than it has to do with expansionism or aggression from the newly nuclear state.

Well considering their "leader" has stated that he beleives vapourizing Israel is gov't agenda #1 I might beg to differ with your assumption.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on February 07, 2006, 18:30:12
Well being of Iranian descent I'd like to say that the people of Iran have been bullied around by their government for 27 years and as much as I'd like to see some good change, the U.S. will not bring any. Bush just wants to blow the country to smithereens and build himself a big ol' gas station.

 ::)

Don't forget he also needs to build a parking-lot for Disney's next big project.  Oh, and the Zionists want to build more banks.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: mo-litia on February 07, 2006, 18:39:26
I'm personally a big fan of Zionist banking; it's certainly a better economic model than some of the alternatives out there.  ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: regulator12 on February 07, 2006, 18:54:59
The Guess. Very good article you wrote. You have really good points
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: The Gues-|- on February 07, 2006, 18:59:46
The Guess. Very good article you wrote. You have really good points

As much as I'd like to take credit for it, I can't... because I didn't write it; lol.  But hey! thanks anyways :D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: regulator12 on February 07, 2006, 19:05:17
No Problem, well thanks for bringing to light a good read.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 07, 2006, 19:18:54
Well considering their "leader" has stated that he beleives vapourizing Israel is gov't agenda #1 I might beg to differ with your assumption.

Tyrannical governments, especially Iran's, love to bluster and boast about what they would/should/could do to "Enemy X" but I'd say the contemporary state of affairs is such that none of them will come anywhere close to putting their money where their mouth is - a nuclear Israel (and no one's still wondering about the existence of nuclear capabilities in Israel, regardless of the ambiguity on the subject) would be far too painful to obliterate, even without retaliations from the US and allies. When they had the Soviets and a somewhat fence-sitting US in a bipolar standoff it was one thing, but now there's no doubt as to the outcome of any nuclear or military action against Israel, nor of where the US stands in relation to Israel and its foreign policy in the Middle East.

 North Korea boasts and spews alot of the same kind of tripe towards the US but no one actually sees it as anything but what it is: empty posturing to solidify support on the domestic extremist front and maintain some semblance of pride, no matter how thin, to rhetorically prop up the fragile system of rule at home. All such states can realistically do is posture and secure their continued authority at home by making themselves too costly a target to attack. I think the reason why the US is so concerned about Iran and North Korea having nukes is that it essentially removes military force from their list of options in dealing with those states by virture of its cost, both economic and political, internationally and at home. Realistically, I think the economic and political cost of military force on an invasion scale, by Western states (especially unilaterally, is already getting to the point where it's prohibitively impractical for all but the most extreme circumstances (such as 9/11). I think the US would do better to use its other tools where it still retains de facto dominance, but that's a different topic.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: ChopperHead on February 07, 2006, 20:18:34
I heard this on the news I dont rember which channel though but i heard Iran has cut off all trade with Denmark over those stupid cartoons. Anyone confirm that?

arnt North Korea and China allies? So if China has the Largest Army in the world and is rapidly becoming a massive Nuclear power as well. Is it not logical to assume that any action against North Korea would in turn provoke a Chinese retaliation? Also North Korea is right beside China and Russia so it's not really a mistery on how they are being supplied here. China is it's ally and with the current state of the Russian Armed forces it would not be difficult to get weapons from them as they need money. so a couple Russian nukes wouldnt surprise me if they showed up on N. Korean soil. or Iranian soil for that matter.

 the way i see it the world is just teetering on the brink of another world war. which I do belive will happen in my lifetime. there is that taiwan issue then theres the Iran issue and the situation in Africa etc etc etc the world is being held together by duct tape and that hundred mile tape is getting pretty damn close to the hundreth mile.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Navy_Blue on February 07, 2006, 20:26:59
Some other interesting reading relating to the above article:

Iran’s Oil Exchange threatens the Greenback
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060123_iran_92s_oil_exchange_.htm

Enjoy  :)  March is just around the corner lets see if they know what they are talking about eh?

 :cdn:


Cheers
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Otto Fest on February 07, 2006, 20:47:05
If a man states that he will immolate the Jews and create a unified superstate under his leadership I will take him at his word.  After all, that's what Hitler did 15 years before WW2 when he wrote Mein Kampf.  Whether he really intends to do so is moot; the followers he's attracted will follow through.  Recall that the final solution devised in 1942 cannot really be traced to Hitler except by indirect means.  All it often takes is a tacit sanctioning of an action for a mob to to it.

As an American General stated "I'm not really afraid what they can do to us, but more afraid of what we may have to do to them (to end it)."  The US remains the only Hyper Power in history, spending far more on defence than the next 10 countries combined.  Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: The Gues-|- on February 07, 2006, 22:16:58
  Just my 2 cents.

You pretty much took the words out of my mouth, so there's my 2 cents as well, 4 cents in total! :dontpanic:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: TCBF on February 07, 2006, 22:49:15
You do what you gotta do to stay on top.  As Canadians, we better hope they DO stay on top.  Once you start to slide....

Tom
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 48Highlander on February 08, 2006, 00:31:30
Tyrannical governments, especially Iran's, love to bluster and boast about what they would/should/could do to "Enemy X" but I'd say the contemporary state of affairs is such that none of them will come anywhere close to putting their money where their mouth is

 ???

So you've got the neighbourhood gangbanger blustering and threatening to shoot people....but because we know he's just "boasting", we shouldn't bother trying to stop him from getting a gun.  We'll just send Glorified Ape to go around the neighbourhood telling people "don't worry, he probably won't use it".
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cannonfodder on February 08, 2006, 00:43:35
The paradox of the Middle East is that the more that the west tries to control it , the more it gets out of hand . I do not the solution to this one but here is a solution maybe the west could supply Tehran with thorium based nuclear reactors .If Iran's true aim is electrical generation then Thorium based reactors would be a good fit since they do not produce weapons grade plutonium 239 and uranium 235 . If this is there true aim , they should be open to such a proposal if not the writing may be on the wall .
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Acorn on February 08, 2006, 02:35:05
???

So you've got the neighbourhood gangbanger blustering and threatening to shoot people....but because we know he's just "boasting", we shouldn't bother trying to stop him from getting a gun.  We'll just send Glorified Ape to go around the neighbourhood telling people "don't worry, he probably won't use it".

???

Silly analogy, even if I disagree with Glorified Ape.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: ZxExN on February 08, 2006, 04:18:08
When the US can actually improve the living conditions of the country they 'liberate', I'll support them. Before that, I'm just stick and tired of it all. Iraq was 10x better off with Sadam in power and that's the truth. Ask anyone who has gone back to Iraq and they'll tell you same thing. People in live in fear and die every day from terrorist attacks. Children are not going to school, essentially a generation has been lost.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chummy on February 08, 2006, 05:27:47
It is interesting that most of the replies to this post address only the nuclear weapons, and not the latter half of the post. Since these weapons are unlikely to be used against the west, or at all if they are an effective local deterrent, the more ominous message in the initial post is the shift in American policy from being a global player, deferent to international law, to being willing to act unilaterally using pre-emptive, and by all standards illegal action. (I am not anti-american, or necessarily anti-war, for that matter - after 9-11, taking out the Taliban was completely justified, and internationally supported. Iraq is another matter).

Gwynne Dyer, in his fairly recent book "Future:Tense", makes a compelling argument to this effect. He argues, with compelling citations, that the war in Iraq was really the result of a neo-conservative agenda to use a weak country to demonstrate American willingness to use unilateral force to justify its military might, by "proving" the willingness and need to keep a "pax americana". He further argues that, if the Americans are not forced from Iraq, the "Rule of Law" represented by the UN that at least allowed countries to save face and back away from conflicts, will cease to exist in any meaningful way.

He also argues that some considerable devaluation of American currency, and power, is inevitable over the next 30-50 years (to get into the details, read the book, I don't want to summarize the whole thing here). Mr. Dyer does not present a scenario where this happens as quickly as suggested in the original post, but I suppose it is not impossible. Certainly, it is not in anybody's interest to put America's back to the wall like that, but undoubtedly a huge fear in Washington is that someone will yell that the emperor has no clothes.     

Mr Dyer argues, and I agree, that what is truly scary is this entire world scenario, precipitated by the current gang in Washington under highly questionable pretenses, appears to be setting the stage for the return to multilateral power alliances, and the type of political conditions that lead to World War I. These are the very conditions that were unthinkable with the advent of nuclear weapons, and resulted in the urgent creation of the United Nations. This is much more complex and fundamentally serious than the usual mantra "War for Oil", or Iran obtaining a nuclear power plant, in terms of the fate of the entire world.   

Hopefully a change in power in Washington will result in Washington taking a more rational world view where the US sees itself as a big, important country, but still just another country in the international community, nevertheless. Hopefully the relative peace and international rule of law (with a few noted exceptions) in the world of the 1990's, and the positive outlook, has not slipped beyond our grasp. The current US regime's world view of America is simply dangerous.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: DBA on February 08, 2006, 06:29:09
When the US can actually improve the living conditions of the country they 'liberate', I'll support them. Before that, I'm just stick and tired of it all. Iraq was 10x better off with Saddam in power and that's the truth. Ask anyone who has gone back to Iraq and they'll tell you same thing. People in live in fear and die every day from terrorist attacks. Children are not going to school, essentially a generation has been lost.

I despair at the complete ignorance expressed in that paragraph. The Shiite and Kurd populations were not better off under Saddam. Children are going to school in present day Iraq in the majority of the country. Large populations lived in fear of persecution including summary arrests and executions while Saddam was in charge so they don't wish for his return. Compared to historical conflicts the Iraq war is pretty mild, just look back to the Iran/Iraq war in which it's estimated over a million died. The country would be rebuilt already and the Americans gone if the terrorists let the job be done so I don't fault the Americans for the slow progress.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 08, 2006, 07:20:41
...

He also argues that some considerable devaluation of American currency, and power, is inevitable over the next 30-50 years (to get into the details, read the book, I don't want to summarize the whole thing here). Mr. Dyer does not present a scenario where this happens as quickly as suggested in the original post, but I suppose it is not impossible. Certainly, it is not in anybody's interest to put America's back to the wall like that, but undoubtedly a huge fear in Washington is that someone will yell that the emperor has no clothes.     

...

We have discussed this particular point just a few months back; see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,33469.msg252205.html#msg252205

My point then, as now is that states and empires ebb and flow.  I, personelly, do not detect any divine intervention in the affairs of states and empires over the past few thousand years - not even now, in America.

America can and, I think, will arrest and moderate the rate of its 'decline' but that decline is, of course, not absolute - it is measured relative to the rise of competitors.

I would add that ideas endure longer than empires – Greece is no longer a power but we still read the Iliad and the Odyssey, and Aristotle and Plato.  The British empire is distant memory but Locke, Hume, Smith and Mill remain.  The ideas of Jefferson and Madison will outlive the exploits of the US military.

----------

PS  We already have an Iranian Bourse thread at:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39009.msg326653.html#msg326653 perhaps this should be merged with it.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on February 08, 2006, 10:44:24
There are no competitors to the US just  wannabe's. The economic system of the US is superior to those
so called competing states, in fact no other economy in the world even come's close. None of us in our lifetime will see a US in decline. I dont see Russia, China or India's economy coming close to overtaking the US they have too many weaknesses. My comments might appear jingoistic but I think are realistic. The recent US unemployment number was 4.7%, any other country match that ? Military power I think its unquestioned.
The US has progressed beyond a post industrial economy while our potential rivals are stuck in an industrial economic model. I would recomend Alvin Toffler's Third Wave printed in 1980 as time has proven his thinking out.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 08, 2006, 11:53:20
It is interesting that most of the replies to this post address only the nuclear weapons, and not the latter half of the post. Since these weapons are unlikely to be used against the west, or at all if they are an effective local deterrent, the more ominous message in the initial post is the shift in American policy from being a global player, deferent to international law, to being willing to act unilaterally using pre-emptive, and by all standards illegal action. (I am not anti-american, or necessarily anti-war, for that matter - after 9-11, taking out the Taliban was completely justified, and internationally supported. Iraq is another matter).

Ah yes, "International Law". When you go to a criminal or civil court, you are seeing the State exercising its power. Without the armed power of the State as an ultimate recourse to compel obedience, how will you receive your justice? If you are awarded a judgement in your favor and the other party balks, the sheriff can seize his chattel property and the offender can be arrested and jailed. Without the recourse to State power, you are SOL.

But where is the overweaning Power to compell a Sovereign State? Even a relative pipsqueak State like Ba'athist Iraq was able to defy "International Law" through the 1990s, with some assistance from the "Oil for Food" crowd to be sure, but since no one was able or willing to compel Saddam Hussein to follow the directives, he simply did not. If Iraq doesn't follow "International Law" without compulsion, then what is to stop Iran from defying "International Law" (and they don't even have nuclear weapons yet!). How about a Sovereign State with vastly more power and resources like China?

Quote
Gwynne Dyer, in his fairly recent book "Future:Tense", makes a compelling argument to this effect. He argues, with compelling citations, that the war in Iraq was really the result of a neo-conservative agenda to use a weak country to demonstrate American willingness to use unilateral force to justify its military might, by "proving" the willingness and need to keep a "pax americana". He further argues that, if the Americans are not forced from Iraq, the "Rule of Law" represented by the UN that at least allowed countries to save face and back away from conflicts, will cease to exist in any meaningful way.

I wonder why arguments like this always end up with appeals to the UN. After the complete failure of the UN through the 1990s (Former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Oil for Food, Rwanda, WMD inspections in Iraq, genocide in Dafur...shall I continue?) is there any possible legitimacy left in that organization? For that matter, would you want to give the sort of power required to compel a Sovereign State to a corrupt and profoundly illiberal institution like the UN?

Quote
Mr Dyer argues, and I agree, that what is truly scary is this entire world scenario, precipitated by the current gang in Washington under highly questionable pretenses, appears to be setting the stage for the return to multilateral power alliances, and the type of political conditions that lead to World War I. These are the very conditions that were unthinkable with the advent of nuclear weapons, and resulted in the urgent creation of the United Nations. This is much more complex and fundamentally serious than the usual mantra "War for Oil", or Iran obtaining a nuclear power plant, in terms of the fate of the entire world.

NATO was not a multi-lateral power alliance? What about the G-8? The Anglosphere? The Francaphonie? The British Commonwealth? The world has always had shifting formal and informal alliances, some which are reflected in formal organizations (think back to @400 BC when the Delian League was locked in a series of hot and cold wars with "Sparta and her Allies". All the City-States of Greece were involved, as well as the Persian Empire and many unaffiliated Greek City-States throughout the Mediterranean sea.)

Quote
Hopefully a change in power in Washington will result in Washington taking a more rational world view where the US sees itself as a big, important country, but still just another country in the international community, nevertheless. Hopefully the relative peace and international rule of law (with a few noted exceptions) in the world of the 1990's, and the positive outlook, has not slipped beyond our grasp. The current US regime's world view of America is simply dangerous.

A far more compelling argument is that the inattention of the United States to the external world through the 1990's set the stage for the present state of affairs.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Junius on February 08, 2006, 12:10:22
There are no competitors to the US just  wannabe's. The economic system of the US is superior to those
so called competing states, in fact no other economy in the world even come's close. None of us in our lifetime will see a US in decline. I dont see Russia, China or India's economy coming close to overtaking the US they have too many weaknesses. My comments might appear jingoistic but I think are realistic. The recent US unemployment number was 4.7%, any other country match that ? Military power I think its unquestioned.
The US has progressed beyond a post industrial economy while our potential rivals are stuck in an industrial economic model. I would recomend Alvin Toffler's Third Wave printed in 1980 as time has proven his thinking out.

The United States has an 8 trillion dollar debt and a 415 billion dollar budgetary deficit. Their trade deficit is 610 billion, the largest ever recorded in history. Do you know anything about what continual budget deficits does to the money market? If you don't, I'll sum it up for you: RECESSION. Negative GDP Growth. Depression.

You let me know how this is anywhere near a desired economy. They are indeed poised for a very great fall.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Remius on February 08, 2006, 12:11:55
There are no competitors to the US just  wannabe's. The economic system of the US is superior to those
so called competing states, in fact no other economy in the world even come's close. None of us in our lifetime will see a US in decline.

There is no question that the US economy is powerful but to adopt the attitude that there are no competitors is dangerous.  Underestimating the competion is the 1st step to failure.  If China ever decides to wake up completely the US will be in trouble.  The sheer amount of manpower that emanates from there is scary.  

Although the US is the only real superpower right now, don't think for a second that things can't change over night.  The roman empire was unmatched in both economy and military and it fell apart due to social and cultural erosion.  The decline happened quite rapidly.  The same could happen in the US in the span of only a few years if the right ingredients are in place so don't get too comfortable with your notion of "WE ARE ALL POWER, NONE CAN FACE US".  Sometimes defeat comes from within.  Then your competitors (so called wannabes) become a real threat.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 08, 2006, 15:36:37
The United States has an 8 trillion dollar debt and a 415 billion dollar budgetary deficit. Their trade deficit is 610 billion, the largest ever recorded in history. Do you know anything about what continual budget deficits does to the money market? If you don't, I'll sum it up for you: RECESSION. Negative GDP Growth. Depression.

You let me know how this is anywhere near a desired economy. They are indeed poised for a very great fall.

This sort of accounting ignores the over 51 Trillion dollars of assets in the hands of US citizens. In fact, by the reasoning above, Canada should have landed in the toilet a long time ago given our vast debt and deficits. (Even today, I would wonder what exactly Canada's budgetary position is given Paul Martin's Enron like accounting since 1993.....). The US debt and deficits have been growing for DECADES, many economists see no direct connection between debt, deficits and economic growth. After all, the Great Depression occured while the United States balanced its budget, and the "New Deal" which eventually helped end the depression was explicitly financed by debt and deficit spending.

As for their "desired" economy, an annual @ 4% growth rate in the GDP and an unemployment of 4.7% dosn't sound too shabby to me.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Navy_Blue on February 08, 2006, 18:41:27
I think the US is coming to the top of a peak and in our life time we will see it head down (Not really good for CND).  I'm only 28 and China in the 21st century makes China of the 70's & 80's look like the dark ages.  They have done in 20 years (or less) what it took the US more than 50 to do.  A country like China is in a limbo between Communist and Capitalist.  They enjoy the Labour costs of a communist country with monetary rewards of a capitalist nation.  Most of our manufactured goods comes from Asia.  More and more of our raw material and natural resource are are going to head west.  We're seeing it now with Chinese firms having real intrest in buying up our biggest mining companies.  These people are going too pass us before we even know we have been passed.

Europe (UK, France, Germany) of the 19th century was the power house.  It had the real military might and the infancy of the industrial revoltion fueling it.  In the 20th Century North America took over (partly because we just finished bombing Europes industry into the ground).  Our economy has sored in the past fifty years while Europe leveled out (until the EU started to change things).  China and Asia is in the passing lane now beside us giving us a smerk and getting ready to hit the gas.  I think we may be seeing the tail lights soon.

Unemployment rates are steady for now but the big three (or two now) have laid down major layoffs.  GM is saying if they don't figure out how to dig out of there slump they have just over 1000 days before they are in real trouble.  Ford is dumping 30,000 over the next few years.  When auto makers in the US start seeing red the industries which support them will follow.  The economy is not in happy boom times like it was prior to 911.  We're heading down.  I'm glad I work for the government and have a contract for the next 15 years.

The writing is on the wall our arrogance is blinding us too it.  I haven't seen anything saying "we're alright"..."this will all pass and we'll be fine."  Its all "Global Warming"...."Crisis in Iraq"...."Terrorists"..."Nukes in Iran" We are witnessing a change in world order.

Goodluck everybody

 :cdn:

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: regulator12 on February 08, 2006, 18:54:27
I think it is a scary thought for the average person that America could and will fall. It scares people to think that China will be the next super power. These are issues that most people turn a blind eye to and hope wont happen. This world is changing fast and i think the next few years to come will be very interesting for all of us.....
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 08, 2006, 19:49:09
All right, listen up you pessimists!

We are the inheritors of an intellectual and cultural tradition which goes back over 2500 years.

The West has overcome challenges ranging from Global Cooling from @1400-1800, the loss of 1/3 of the population due to the Black Plague, invasions from the most terrifying armies in all history (the Huns), internal conflict over religion which devastated most of central Europe (30 years war), and challenges to the ideas and ideals of liberal democracy by the most terrifying philosophies that the West could produce (backed by modern industrial armies and states) in the forms of Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism .

Our ancestors did all that and at the same time raised a towering cultural edifice of art, music, literature etc. second to none. We created and operate the industrial and post industrial economy which directly or indirectly feeds, clothes, houses and employs virtually everyone in the world. We even landed men on the Moon.

If we walk away from these great achievments, if we complain about the problems we face but fail to take actions to solve them, if we don't use the wide ranging freedom of inquiry, capital and personal mobility to impliment the best possible solutions, then we deserve everything which happens. Many of the problems pointed out here are relatively a fraction of the size of problems like the Great Depression or National Socialist Germany were to previous generations, our resources and the depth of our knowledge is vastly greater than what was available to them, and in terms of relative size, the problems are much smaller.

NO MORE WHINGIG about debt, trade imbalance, oil, Jihadis or anything else unless you are going to be a true member of Western Civilization and offer a solution as well. Better yet, tell us how YOU personally will impliment this!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: true canadian on February 08, 2006, 20:19:10
What the hell is wrong with these nuclear power countries.  Whats so good about having them they only bring massive death and destruction to the citizens of the country.  Why don't they do old fashion bombing on military factories and dive bombing on enemy forces.  Nukes are stupid if your going to defend your country by using them and use it on a country then its just going to send one back and the country that you tried to save and the attacking country are both inielated by these bombing.  So in my eyes nukes are just world enders not country protectors. Also what are the US doing, attacking countries with nukes, there the ones with like 13000 of them so lets all attack them. :threat:  If the cold war actually happened the Nuke part then north America and northern Asia and Europe would of been completely destroyed because of back and forth bombings.  :-\
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on February 08, 2006, 20:22:47
What the hell is wrong with these nuclear power countries.  Whats so good about having them they only bring massive death and destruction to the citizens of the country.  Why don't they do old fashion bombing on military factories and dive bombing on enemy forces.  Nukes are stupid if your going to defend your country by using them and use it on a country then its just going to send one back and the country that you tried to save and the attacking country are both inielated by these bombing.  So in my eyes nukes are just world enders not country protectors. Also what are the US doing, attacking countries with nukes, there the ones with like 13000 of them so lets all attack them. :threat:  If the cold war actually happened the Nuke part then north America and northern Asia and Europe would of been completely destroyed because of back and forth bombings.  :-\

Wow !!  what an intelligent and well thought out post  ::)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: derael on February 08, 2006, 20:56:32
Not only that...his alias is "true canadian"...time to hang our heads in shame I guess  :crybaby:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: regulator12 on February 08, 2006, 21:06:58
Quote
We even landed men on the Moon.

That is debatable, i wont start here but i am sure there are skeptics of whether that happend or not...i for one am skeptical......
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 08, 2006, 21:13:06
No need to debate, the Apollo astronauts left a laser reflector on the moon. Illuminating it and seeing the reflection is a bit of a challenge, but it hasn't stopped some people: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/laser_moon_010810-1.html
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: regulator12 on February 08, 2006, 21:41:31
Ill take my foot out of my mouth now...... :-[
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Navy_Blue on February 08, 2006, 21:48:34
Dude the cold war did happened.  WWIII did not.  No matter how illogical it sounds MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction)  saved our asses.  We came close I think and probably more times than we know.  Through just blind luck and the thought of wiping all life out on earth we didn't press the red button.  

These people acquire nukes b/c it buys them clout weather they can hit North America or not.  That clout makes the US play fair some times.  We have all seen how much clout this country has (soft wood, beef, etc).  These days there are people who would love to "find" a briefcase sized weapon and place it as close to us infidels as possible.  Iran hints at sharing some of the same views as the people looking for small nukes.  Tends to make life worrysum for world leaders.

As far as my pessimistic views go.  The Asian culture has persisted for thousands of years longer than us or even the people we have inherited our "intellectual and cultural tradition"  They have been through just as many hardships conquests and victories as we have.  The simple fact is they are poised to take the lead on the this planet.  In no way should taking the lead economically be considered a threat to our culture beliefs or freedom.  We're talking about billions vs hundreds on millions who will be expecting to consume goods as quickly as the western people they in some cases have looked on with envy.  

The problem is that this level of consumerism could very well break the planet as whole.  Solution. have a vision of what our future looks like and not a vision of four years down the road when the next leader can bribe us with lower taxes or better healthcare.  Our politicians don't try and bribe us with big dreams because we don't dream that way anymore.  Our culture doesn't look at our children and wonder or care what they will have to deal with.  We care about our next pay check our next vacation our next night out.  No one wants to think about the future because no one sees one.
We our culture would have to make big sacrifices to make things turn around and we are not willing to do so.   Respected PHD's in every field relentlessly tell the media how bad it is and it all comes out as white noise to us.  How do you make us hear the screams??

I'm on for the ride now.  I look to the stars and I still dream.  I bring my kids up to look to the future, to care about the planet and to care about our country as much as I do.  I only wish other people would do the same.  Most people I know don't see past next week.  If you point it out, they shrug and say "it not my problem."

 :cdn:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: regulator12 on February 08, 2006, 21:59:31
People wont care till they need to care.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: nULL on February 08, 2006, 23:23:15
I find it curious that many in this thead are debating the merits of going to war with Iran. While naturally this is expected on a website entitled army.ca, I couldn't help but feel that the article's underlying theme - the apparent collapse of our financial system - has been underplayed. I did a little snooping on google, and wow - just wow.

I'm starting to wonder if I should be heavily investing in commodities; is a return to the gold standard inevitable? I question whether or not the article's warning of a transition to the euro is likely; like our current system, it's a fiat currency. Wouldn't it therefore share the same weaknesses and uncertainties as our current system?

 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cannonfodder on February 09, 2006, 01:17:00
 You said it Null , the days of the US dollar are numbered , the new standard global currency will be the euro . Gold and other commodities are fairly sound investments with the current and future global situation . Soaring trade deficit , high consumer debt , a housing bubble , erosion of  American domestic industry , and ever increasing expensive military adventures will bring the US economy to its knees . The old solution was to print more currency in the form of bonds , the majority of these bonds are held by foreign investors [Chinese] when they decide to flush the dollar and go to the Euro it will be a rapid process . There are more imminent dangers to the security of the US than some other country acquiring nuclear capibility . Way to go  W , half a trillion on military adventures since 911  , out of control spending  , and neglecting the real threats to US security . I dont think your daddy will be able to bail you out of this one .
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 09, 2006, 10:44:01
???

So you've got the neighbourhood gangbanger blustering and threatening to shoot people....but because we know he's just "boasting", we shouldn't bother trying to stop him from getting a gun.  We'll just send Glorified Ape to go around the neighbourhood telling people "don't worry, he probably won't use it".

 Iran isn't a "gangbanger" - it's a sovereign state which knows that its own obliteration (along with its leadership) lies in waging any type of military aggression - nuclear or not. The repercussions of the former are 100x the latter. There's an argument to be made that nuclear weapons actually pacify a state's foreign behaviour towards other nuclear states insofar as the repercussions of agressive posturing or action are exponentially greater than what they would be if the offending state was non-nuclear. India and Pakistan's situation has actually improved since both came into possession of nuclear weapons. Conventional warfare between nuclear states becomes a very risky, high-cost avenue when the possibility of nuclear war is factored into the equation.

As I said before, I think Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology (assuming it's intended for weapons, which I would guess is probably so) stems from a need for deterrence - primarily against the US, but I suppose against Israel as well. Given the recent incursions into the Middle East by the US and other states, combined with the fact that Iran is now almost literally surrounded by the US (Iraq, Afghanistan) and its [quasi-]allies (Turkey, Pakistan), it's hardly surprising that they would want to possess a viable deterrent to disuade an invasion or attack. The deterrent value is compounded when one considers that the states acting as staging points or allies to any action by the US are the ones that will suffer the most from any nuclear backlash due to their proximity. Iranian aggression would be suicide, and they know it - it would be doubly so if it was nuclear aggression. As loud, obnoxious, and extreme as Iran is, I don't think their leadership is suicidal.

There are no competitors to the US just  wannabe's. The economic system of the US is superior to those
so called competing states, in fact no other economy in the world even come's close. None of us in our lifetime will see a US in decline. I dont see Russia, China or India's economy coming close to overtaking the US they have too many weaknesses. My comments might appear jingoistic but I think are realistic. The recent US unemployment number was 4.7%, any other country match that ? Military power I think its unquestioned.
The US has progressed beyond a post industrial economy while our potential rivals are stuck in an industrial economic model. I would recomend Alvin Toffler's Third Wave printed in 1980 as time has proven his thinking out.

European economic volume (IE trade) dwarfs that of the NAFTA, let alone the US. The EU is the largest economy on Earth. European trade is disproportionately internal and thus subject to a lesser degree of external influence while US trade (and NAFTA) is far more externalised. More than just a competitor, the EU is now the dominant economy. Individually, the US still trumps everyone else but the old state-centric, individualist political-economic model is dying at the hands of regionalisation - just look at developments along these lines in Asia (ASEAN/APEC) and South America (MERCOSUR). If the US were dealing on a one-on-one basis with Europe, your statement would be correct. As it stands, it's the level at which governance takes place (especially economic governance) that determines a unit's scope and for Europe, that governance is regional. The same might be said of North America if NAFTA expands/deepens into a customs union or beyond, but the US (especially the present administration) doesn't seem particularly fond of the idea as it necessarily means the degredation of sovereignty.

God knows what will happen if Asia ever decides to move anywhere near the level of integration that Europe now has.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on February 09, 2006, 10:54:18
You said it Null , the days of the US dollar are numbered , the new standard global currency will be the euro . Gold and other commodities are fairly sound investments with the current and future global situation . Soaring trade deficit , high consumer debt , a housing bubble , erosion of  American domestic industry , and ever increasing expensive military adventures will bring the US economy to its knees . The old solution was to print more currency in the form of bonds , the majority of these bonds are held by foreign investors [Chinese] when they decide to flush the dollar and go to the Euro it will be a rapid process . There are more imminent dangers to the security of the US than some other country acquiring nuclear capibility . Way to go  W , half a trillion on military adventures since 911  , out of control spending  , and neglecting the real threats to US security . I dont think your daddy will be able to bail you out of this one .

For the Euro to replace the dollar the EU better have a dranatic economic overhaul because until that happens the Euro is second place. Compare Europe's unemployment to that of the US. Their combined economies are being strangled by their national welfare programs - healthcare, doll, ect.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 09, 2006, 11:36:49
Thinking that Iran is somehow constrained by "Realpolitik" WRT nuclear weapons is a pipe dream. When their President openly calls for the destruction of Israel, and claims the arrival of the Mahdi is immanent (in Islamic theology, this is similar the Christians proclaiming the return of Jesus Christ and the day of Judgement), the thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of people who are proclaiming the Apocalypse is more than just "scary". A military "head shot" against their nuclear facilities, government institutions and revolutionary guard is probably the best possible solution we have now, unless the Iranian population can rise up en mass and overthrow their opressors.

Lenin proclaimed "World Revolution",  Hitler wrote extensively about what he planned for Europe, and Imperial Japanese policy was fairly well known in the first half of the 20th century, and surprise!, they did their best to carry out their stated intentions. Intelligence commonly looks at capabilities rather than intentions, which may be one of the traps we have fallen into, in any "rational" universe, Iran is completely unable to carry out any of its stated intentions. Indeed Osama Bin Laden stated the reason for the 9/11 attacks was explicitly to provoke the United States into war, while not a rational act by any means, this played directly into his belief system (based on observed American behavior in the 1990s, he felt America was a "paper tiger", and he believed US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on would not only be slow, grinding and unsuccessful, but would also lead to an uprising throughout the Islamic world.)

WRT economics, there are large challenges facing the West (not just the United States), but adversary often unleashes creative solutions and allows merit to come forward when the status quo fails. Statist solutions to the economic problems haven't worked, but given the limited challenges we have faced so far, the system has been able to continue to function. Place a large shock and innovative solutions like President Bush's proposed reworking of Social Security or the privatization of Canada's health care system become not only desirable but absolutely necessary.

For those people who are arguing the primacy of Asian or other non-European/Western cultures, just read your history. The Chinese invented paper currency, gunpowder, sailed huge armadas in the Indian Ocean and so on, but who actually took over the world? These other cultures are internally focused, and while this gives them a certain longevity and internal stability, this does not tranlate into their long term advantage. One might ask why these Chinese fleets did not establish colonies in India, the Arabian Peninsula, the east coast of Africa, or Indonesia, when there is unambiguous evidence they had actually visited these places?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: RECON-MAN on February 09, 2006, 11:55:43
It is only a matter of time.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Junius on February 09, 2006, 14:02:41
This sort of accounting ignores the over 51 Trillion dollars of assets in the hands of US citizens. In fact, by the reasoning above, Canada should have landed in the toilet a long time ago given our vast debt and deficits. (Even today, I would wonder what exactly Canada's budgetary position is given Paul Martin's Enron like accounting since 1993.....). The US debt and deficits have been growing for DECADES, many economists see no direct connection between debt, deficits and economic growth. After all, the Great Depression occured while the United States balanced its budget, and the "New Deal" which eventually helped end the depression was explicitly financed by debt and deficit spending.

As for their "desired" economy, an annual @ 4% growth rate in the GDP and an unemployment of 4.7% dosn't sound too shabby to me.

4% growth rate in Real GDP or nominal? Where are your figures coming frmo?

"Many economists see no direct connection between debt, deficits, and economic growth"

You must be making this up. Please supply some sources. My source, Gregory Mankiw (former Bush economic advisor who resigned in disgust and is a professor at Harvard university, PH.D. in macroeconomics) begs to differ.

"Deficits reduce the supply of loanable funds, increase interest rates, discourage invetsment, and result in slower economic growth. Slower economic growth leads to lower tax revenue and higher spending on income-support programs, and the result is even higher budget deficits. A vicious cycle."

"When the government reduces national saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises, and investment falls." It's called the crowding out effect. The government sucks up all the supply of loanable funds and leaves none left over for private firms to borrow for investment.

And as for your comment about Paul Martin.. he got us out of our vicious cycle of budget deficits that stretched from 1975 - 1993. It took enormous political courage. And where do we stand now? The only country in the G8 that is running a surplus and paying down our debt.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Otto Fest on February 09, 2006, 14:55:54
I propose that WW 3 was fought and won by the democratic/capitalistic west.  I was fought in Korea, Germany, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, South Africa, Namibia, Central and South America and all the oceans.  The major powers could not fight head to head because they knew it would result in mutual destruction; so the war was waged 'at the margins'.  Proxies and economic resources as well as media and entertainment were employed.  Nike and Levis were the anvils of victory for this battle, but all had modern militaries in order to avoid direct conflict.

Not all battles were succesful for the west of course, but with superior economic resources Reagan eventually beggered the communists.

Now we're in the middle of WW 4.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Rodders on February 09, 2006, 18:26:10
OKAY gents, how 'bout we keep this on topic and quit the USA bashing.

As far as the USA falling anytime soon?  Don't think so, we still have a lot of technology from the Roswell crash.....

I don't think analysis or observations in which the United States is portrayed as anything but superior or infallible implies "USA bashing". All things have negative aspects or downsides. Me, you, Canada and the United States are all imperfect. To note these imperfections is a necessary part of analysis. To ignore them is naive at best, negligent at worst.

BTW when will some of that Roswell technology be implemented into the mainstream so I no longer have to reset my digital clock after a power outage? :-)

This is my first post on this board. I don't wish to sound argumentative in anyway. I have found this thread both interesting and educational and I want to see it continue in a constructive direction.

Thanks

Rodders
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: regulator12 on February 09, 2006, 18:34:10
That is true when will they solve the problem with those dam power outages affected digital watches. It really is annoying you know.... ;D
Likewise Rodders is correct, analysing the United States and pointing out obvious flaws is not bashing but mere analysis. It could be for the better if these types of debates were held in government offices to bring up new solutions to problems.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Navy_Blue on February 09, 2006, 18:59:43
"World War" "Cold War" It no longer true encompasses what we are dealing with in the 21st century.  I think its just the beginning of a global state of flux that will consume all aspects of our lives.  It will take years for this all to cool off.

To get back on topic a bit :) Iran....

They have the power now to bring our economy to its knees.  One WWII era mine placed on a Dow could quietly cross the straights of Hormuz or just the mouth of the gulf.  Let it off in the very thin shipping lane and boom!  Now repeat step one; 6 or 7 times the same night.  Drop a few in the red sea and the Suez closes.  One tanker sinks in those straights and the oil tapes shut off.  IMO insurance rates would sore and oil prices would sky rocket like in the 70's.   The question is why hasn't our friends or enemies in the middle east done this recently.  Al-Qaeda could do this on a whim.  A mine is a pretty simple divice you don't need allot of people to organize a strike like that.  It wouldn't be the first time either; is it not in the intrest of there cause?

I spent 6 months going up and down the gulf and the straights there are little crappy wooden Dow's everywhere.  There are warships everywhere too but you can only check so many of these ships.  For the hundred or so boats the ship  boarded there were a thousand more.

I think most of the negative press (granted they are crazy! crazy! people running that country) we here about Iran now is because of the oil exchange expected to open in under a month.  If things go bad we need an excuse as to why we need to overthrow invade or disrupt Iranian leadership.  Reading that Saddam opened one of these exchanges a year before the war, starts to makes you think.  Everyone laughed at him till it started making real money.  The public needed to here about all the bad things Saddam was doing a year in advance of the invasion to get them in the mind frame and to think it was truly necessary.  Then negative media flooded the air waves quite literally.  All talk was on terrorists and WMD's in Iraq.

Afghanistan I think was the only legitimate target the US had the right to say enough! and go in.  Iraq was a step to far; a step the toothless UN should have been dealing with (someone needs to buy them dentures).  The Al-Qaeda strong hold was in Afghanistan not Iraq.  Saddam supported there cause with words of encouragement but that was more to thumb his nose at old Georgie.    

There is allot more to all this.  Things happening in the shadows from both sides.  If the bad guys really wanted too they could be doing much more damage to us.  Maybe that is what they want though, just prick the sleeping dragon and make it restless.  If you stab it in the butt and it wakes up...your gonna get burned.  They aren't getting burned yet, 911 no matter how awful was just a pin prick like Madrid and London.  Its still early and we've been at it now since 911.  

 :cdn:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 09, 2006, 21:03:12
4% growth rate in Real GDP or nominal? Where are your figures coming frmo?

The US Treasury and Congressional Budget Office

Quote
"Many economists see no direct connection between debt, deficits, and economic growth"

You must be making this up. Please supply some sources. My source, Gregory Mankiw (former Bush economic advisor who resigned in disgust and is a professor at Harvard university, PH.D. in macroeconomics) begs to differ.

Since this isn't a popular or even intuative position, I am not going to play pin the tail on the URL (look up Larry Kudlow for some fairly easy to understand primers). Instead, I am going to put your powers of observation to work: create a chart or graph with yearly debt, deficit, interest rates tax rates and GDP. Plug in the figures from as far back as you can, and look for corellations. The only one you will find is the inverse ratio of taxation to GDP. The United States was working on a balanced the budget through tax and tarrif increases in 1929, which hastened the onset of the Great Depression.

Quote
"Deficits reduce the supply of loanable funds, increase interest rates, discourage invetsment, and result in slower economic growth. Slower economic growth leads to lower tax revenue and higher spending on income-support programs, and the result is even higher budget deficits. A vicious cycle."


See above. You should be able to prove this easily if it was the case. Oh, by the way, what is the current prime interest rate? What is the current deficit? GDP?

Quote
And as for your comment about Paul Martin.. he got us out of our vicious cycle of budget deficits that stretched from 1975 - 1993. It took enormous political courage. And where do we stand now? The only country in the G8 that is running a surplus and paying down our debt.

Like I said, their Enron like accounting makes this subect to question. The "surplus" rose and fell with the political winds, but oddly seemed to vanish at budget time; no tax relief for the likes of you and I. Oh, and the Debt has remained fairly static at $576.8 billion over the same time period, and the unfunded liabilities (CPP, government pensions) is also steady at @ $500 billion. Yes, Paul Martin managed to keep us One Trillion dollars in debt for a decade, "surplus" be damned......
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cannonfodder on February 10, 2006, 19:43:16
The current state of Iran is a product of western societies sanctioning bad behavior by not holding current governments accountable for there human rights abuses as long as they give us what we want . The routes of fundamentalist Islam has its routes in Iran in particular in the 1950s with the abusive regime  of the Shah . Compound this further with foreign support of Israel and the backing of abusive regimes in Saudi Arabia , its no wonder that Arabs view the west with suspicion and  contempt . Oh and lets not forget about the crusades , the west has brought its own brand of poison  to the middle east  too often .
     Iran wants nuclear power and the bomb as a defence against the other state in the middle east that has an advanced nuclear program with several weapons , Israel . Call it keeping up with the Jones , or in this case the Goldbergs , misguided foreign policy by several nations without  thought  for the ramifications has created this situation . How can it be resolved ? , a war would not solve anything , just create future pretexts for future conflicts . This Iraq fiasco has shown that countries can be defeated but not conquered ,  a war with Iran would be devastating for both sides and in the end would not offer a more secure environment . Sure you just throw a couple nukes in there done deal , for today but in 10 , 20 years this will come back to haunt the west .
     Pre emptiveness will solve nothing  , misguided  policies by chicken-hawks [ people who would not fight when they were asked , but are willing to commit others to the fray ,i.e.; Bush ,Cheney ] . Iran needs to be dealt with but not by military intervention , if they want nuclear power  , so be it  . Thorium based nuclear reactors offer the capability to generate electricity but do not generate U 235 or weapons grade plutonium . Dealing with Israel , is a must they need to give up there nuclear weapons and the US needs to suspend military aid in order to secure a lasting peace . We can  not pick sides , objectivity is a must  if dealings with Iran are to succeed .
   
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on February 10, 2006, 20:39:22
What if they say they dont want thorium reactor's ? What is your next course of action ?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cannonfodder on February 10, 2006, 22:11:42
                                                     Take away Israels nuclear capability and re offer the thorium reactors.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on February 10, 2006, 22:20:24
                                                     Take away Israels nuclear capability and re offer the thorium reactors.

Thats positively brilliant...why didnt anyone think of that before ?

 ::)

Earth to canonfodder....

Bottom line is that Iran is a signatory to the NPT
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chris Pook on February 10, 2006, 22:47:59
Quote
Fair enough, in the interests of analysis, what would Canada do if the Chinese destroyed the USA and then invaded Canada? 

I do love nightmare scenarios.  ;D

Let's try this one on for size.  China invests in Alberta Tarsands.  (It's happened you say?)  Alberta is short of labour (Rumour to that effect) Chinese company applies to bring their own labour force into Canada to service their project.  Their project also includes a pipeline to Prince Rupert.  To secure their investment they import their on Private Security firm with responsibility for the Oilsands project, the pipeline and the load out terminus at Prince Rupert.  (How many bodies would that take do you reckon?)

They start pumping more than Canada wants to export.  Whose oil is it again?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cannonfodder on February 10, 2006, 22:58:49
Sorry aesop081  , the nuclear genie  has been let out of the bottle  , information flows from country to country without interuption . Iran is next in line for capability  , who will be after ? , building a nuclear bomb is not rocket science but it also requires alot of specialty items like uranium and if you haven't been paying attention it is getting harder and harder to come by . Countries  like China and India are building reactors at a pace that will soon out strip current supply . Canada , and Australia , the major suppliers of uranium , are trying to find more mineable deposits  . Countries that have uranium reserves will be very reluctant to part with it .
  I offered an original idea and all you can comeback with is that Iran is a signatory , wow there is a news flash , put stock into existing treaties , give me a break . Deal with the realities as they exist on the ground , Israels nuclear capability has created an arms race in the Middle East . In order to solve the problem , Israel needs to be dealt with objectively and brought into line .
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on February 10, 2006, 23:09:09

  I offered an original idea and all you can comeback with is that Iran is a signatory , wow there is a news flash , put stock into existing treaties , give me a break . Deal with the realities as they exist on the ground , Israels nuclear capability has created an arms race in the Middle East . In order to solve the problem , Israel needs to be dealt with objectively and brought into line .

My point with NPT is that Iran is a signatory and the rest of the international comunity has an obligation to demand its compliance.  In case you yourself need a "news flash", israel, India and pakistan are not.  Therfore, to what line should Israel be brouht to ?  Also your idea of " take away nikes from Israel " is propesterous as it doesnt pass the reality check.  if you wish to offer a solution to all this canonfodder, it should at least be plausible.  You do not meet this criteria.  Israel does not even acknowledge having nuclear weapons to begin with and even if they did, their geopolitical and military reality all but guarantee that they would never accept those terms. 

You are the one saying to "deal with the reality on the ground" yet you are the first one to ignore them.



Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cannonfodder on February 10, 2006, 23:32:32
   In case you have not noticed Iran has been cornered in the international communities effort to bring it into compliance . Treaties mean nothing if they are going to develop a nuclear bomb there is nothing that short of going to war will prevent them . This pounding of Arabic states when they try to get on a level footing with there neighbours will have dire consequences for the future .One cannot say it is okay for  country A to have the bomb because they are in line with our interests but country  B can not have  the bomb because they may be a threat to our interests .
 
  The NPT was signed under the Shahs rule and is  perceived as Western restriction to Iran's development . Treaties mean nothing there just empty gestures , to place your faith in them is fool hardy and naive . A secure settlement will only be reached if the Israel  nuclear capability is addressed , if not Iran will go nuclear and there is very little we can do about it .
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on February 10, 2006, 23:37:27
   In case you have not noticed Iran has been cornered in the international communities effort to bring it into compliance . Treaties mean nothing if they are going to develop a nuclear bomb there is nothing that short of going to war will prevent them . This pounding of Arabic states when they try to get on a level footing with there neighbours will have dire consequences for the future .One cannot say it is okay for  country A to have the bomb because they are in line with our interests but country  B can not have  the bomb because they may be a threat to our interests .
 
  The NPT was signed under the Shahs rule and is  perceived as Western restriction to Iran's development . Treaties mean nothing there just empty gestures , to place your faith in them is fool hardy and naive . A secure settlement will only be reached if the Israel  nuclear capability is addressed , if not Iran will go nuclear and there is very little we can do about it .

The original treaty may have been signed under the shah but :

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. [8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

Therefore your assertion that the NPT was somehow seen as opressive by The Iraninan regime is ungrounded by the fact that less than a year ago, Iraninan authorities re-afirmed their countrie's participation in the NPT.  While north Korea has openly rejected the treaty, Iran has not.  The terms of the NPT were review every year until 2005 and Iran has not sought to change it.  rather it chose to support the treaty as it was therefore obligating it to abide by its terms.


I'm not placing my faith on the effectiveness of the treay but rather on the fact that the NPT gives the international community the leagl and moral obligation to opose Iran's nuclear ambition. Treaty entered bu sovreign states for the basis of international laws. In your posts i detect somewhat of an anti-Israel bias that , IMHO, makes you position untenable.  The solution to Iran's nuclear plans does not lie with the removal of Israel's weapons as this will never happen. You idea of offering a different type of reactor to Iran while disarming Israel amounts to Munich all over again.


Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Rodders on February 11, 2006, 16:01:44
Well, let's be realistic. Why would China want to destroy the US? Moreover, why would China want to invade Canada? If you believe the reason for this would be for them to acquire the natural resources we have, they would not need to invade us. They would get them the say way other countries do. By purchasing them. There is only one country on the planet with the geographical ability to invade us, and that's the US.

I do not suggest that we stop doing business with the US. We couldn't, and there would be nothing to gain from it. However, it is a fundamental of business or investing to have a diverse portfolio. You don't invest all your retirement savings with one company. What do you do if they go bust? Canada can, and should be conducting more business with the Asian markets. We don't owe anything to the US that they don't in turn owe to us. That is, the consideration and loyalty that goes along with being national friends. But our first responsibility must be to ourselves. The beauty of it is, we can do both. We do not need to "pick sides". Because China is beginning to rival the US on the world stage does not make it our enemy. The "us & them" mentality is necessary and unavoidable sometimes, but it should not be embraced so readily.

Economics have been the predominant motivation for conflict in the past, and no less so today. However, governments play less of a role these days then they did a few decades ago. MNC's have usurped a great deal of power from national governments, particularly(although not limited to) with regards to foreign policy. Why take by force when you can have through trade?

To summarise, I think the risk of Canada being invaded by the Chinese is equal to the threat of swarming killer bees that were have supposed to have been up here by now.

All power fades, and all empires fall. The place the US holds in the world right now is temporary. They will not be the dominant power forever. If the US really wants to cheat history, and not fade into disarray and obscurity like every other empire before them, they need to figure out how to integrate themselves into a changing world. To this end, I have two hopes. One that there is no excessive destruction and death for any nation's people, and two, that Canada does not get dragged down with them.




Fair enough, in the interests of analysis, what would Canada do if the Chinese destroyed the USA and then invaded Canada? 

Conduct Partisan operations, really what could Canada do if the Chinese decided to take what they wanted?  The UK can no longer defend Canada.  Russia, maybe, or sue for peace?  I think it is fair to say that many nations would love to get a piece of North America if something happened to the US.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 12, 2006, 02:43:18
Thinking that Iran is somehow constrained by "Realpolitik" WRT nuclear weapons is a pipe dream. When their President openly calls for the destruction of Israel, and claims the arrival of the Mahdi is immanent (in Islamic theology, this is similar the Christians proclaiming the return of Jesus Christ and the day of Judgement), the thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of people who are proclaiming the Apocalypse is more than just "scary". A military "head shot" against their nuclear facilities, government institutions and revolutionary guard is probably the best possible solution we have now, unless the Iranian population can rise up en mass and overthrow their opressors.

Whereas nuclear weapons in the hands of a Western religious zealot are somehow preferable? Hey, I haven't noticed Iran participating in any unilateral acts of international aggression lately, but I haven't read the news reports yet today. The thought of nuclear weapons in the hands of people that spout off about "good" and "evil" and "evil-doers" and other non-thinking, sensationalist rhetoric disturbs me too, but I'm not about to argue for the invasion of the US because of it.

Quote
Lenin proclaimed "World Revolution",  Hitler wrote extensively about what he planned for Europe, and Imperial Japanese policy was fairly well known in the first half of the 20th century, and surprise!, they did their best to carry out their stated intentions. Intelligence commonly looks at capabilities rather than intentions, which may be one of the traps we have fallen into, in any "rational" universe, Iran is completely unable to carry out any of its stated intentions. Indeed Osama Bin Laden stated the reason for the 9/11 attacks was explicitly to provoke the United States into war, while not a rational act by any means, this played directly into his belief system (based on observed American behavior in the 1990s, he felt America was a "paper tiger", and he believed US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on would not only be slow, grinding and unsuccessful, but would also lead to an uprising throughout the Islamic world.)

9/11 was an entirely rational act from the perspective of an adversary of the US. Not only did it inflict levels of damage greatly disproportionate to the resources invested but it provoked a response that has alienated "the enemy" (to him the US) from its traditional allies and from a sizeable portion of the world, not to mention the domestic conflict this reaction brought about in the US. 9/11 was not unfeasible or irrational - it was entirely the opposite - both feasible and rational, especially when one considers OBL (and other leadership calibre AQ members) continued existence (assumedly). Iranian aggression is unfeasible insofar as it is impracticable without bringing about the destruction of Iran and the guaranteed deaths/detainment of its leadership. It's irrational insofar as the level of damage suffered would far, far outdo the level of damage wrought - especially on a personal level vis a vis the Iranian leadership.

Iran is not Nazi Germany, nor the Soviet Union or Imperial Japan - it has neither the capabilities nor the grandeur of intent or historical circumstances which all three possessed in such a conjunction that their ambitions were practicable. As for Iranian intent, I stated earlier that I believe their intent to be deterrence, which seems to me to be the most glaringly obvious reason for obtaining nuclear weapons at this juncture. When one factors their current situation with past US policies and practices towards Iran (Mossadegh, the Shah, Iran-Iraq War, etc.), such an intent is hardly irrational or unwarranted.

Quote
WRT economics, there are large challenges facing the West (not just the United States), but adversary often unleashes creative solutions and allows merit to come forward when the status quo fails. Statist solutions to the economic problems haven't worked, but given the limited challenges we have faced so far, the system has been able to continue to function. Place a large shock and innovative solutions like President Bush's proposed reworking of Social Security or the privatization of Canada's health care system become not only desirable but absolutely necessary.

Absolutely necessary? If you're part of the Chicago school, I guess...

Quote
For those people who are arguing the primacy of Asian or other non-European/Western cultures, just read your history. The Chinese invented paper currency, gunpowder, sailed huge armadas in the Indian Ocean and so on, but who actually took over the world? These other cultures are internally focused, and while this gives them a certain longevity and internal stability, this does not tranlate into their long term advantage. One might ask why these Chinese fleets did not establish colonies in India, the Arabian Peninsula, the east coast of Africa, or Indonesia, when there is unambiguous evidence they had actually visited these places?

I'm not quite clear on what your point is here - "we're the best because we conquered, slaughtered, and subjugated better than everyone else"?

In your posts i detect somewhat of an anti-Israel bias that , IMHO, makes you position untenable. 

By that logic, should I hold all your arguments defunct because of your anti-Iranian bias?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 12, 2006, 04:06:47
No one seems unduly worried about the nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States, the UK, France, only moderately worried about Russia (who is in charge of those things over there?) Israel and China, somewhat more worried about Pakistan and India....

Notice a trend? Stable constitutional governments with the rule of law are not a threat. As we slide down the scale, the threat increases until we get to rogue states like Iran and North Korea, which are unconstrained by law, precedent or rules.

9/11 may have been designed to provoke a certain reaction, but the fact remains that the AQ is scattered, no further attacks have taken place against North America (for now), and the establishment of consensual democracies underpinned by the rule of law is proceeding in Afghanistan, Iraq, and reestablishing itself in Lebanon, certainly counter to the goals of establishing a Caliphate, and indeed the true answer to the many pathologies of the region. Autocrats, Socialists and Jihadis and Theocracy's are united in the realization that democratic societies are a threat to their existence through example to the oppressed people. Historically, the last fling of brittle authoritarian regimes is often a desperate gamble on some military adventure in order to deflect attention from the deteriorating conditions at home, and also to fix blame for what is going wrong. You might believe the Iranians are rational, but we could also be looking at a nuclear version of the "last 10 days" in the bunker, only with nuclear weapons.

My economics are actually more towards the Austrian school, but simply looking around at the ever increasing wait times, diminishing levels of service and watching Canadians who have the ability and will going to the US or now India to get medical procedures done, rather than wait several years in pain tells me this system does not work. Socialized medicine is like Socialized groceries, without competition you will be lining up for your ration of health care or bread.

When it comes to the relative staying power of civilizations, the West has marshalled and used the resources available more efficiently than anyone else. True, we haven't been very nice about it in the past, although I might wonder how the Aztec conquest of Europe would have played out if such a thing was possible. The Chinese, with many advantages, were unable to capitalize on them, and so English is the language of business and aviation, the Metric system is the only system universally recognized for science and industry etc. etc.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Glorified Ape on February 13, 2006, 01:00:00
No one seems unduly worried about the nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States, the UK, France, only moderately worried about Russia (who is in charge of those things over there?) Israel and China, somewhat more worried about Pakistan and India....

Notice a trend? Stable constitutional governments with the rule of law are not a threat. As we slide down the scale, the threat increases until we get to rogue states like Iran and North Korea, which are unconstrained by law, precedent or rules.

The same "sky is falling" predictions were made about India, Pakistan, China, and probably even South Africa when they first obtained nuclear weapons but it didn't fall and the world's still here. Now it's Iran and North Korea - Chicken Little's back, heralding their nuclear ambitions as harbingers of the apocalypse. Same script, different cast. The risk posed by either state once in possession of nuclear weapons has been blown out of proportion, not surprisingly, by the people that stand to lose the most (control and influence wise) by such possession - the nuclear powers, most especially in the West. If you've got a stick with which you can beat the other apes over the head, you don't really want them to get their own sticks.


Quote
9/11 may have been designed to provoke a certain reaction, but the fact remains that the AQ is scattered, no further attacks have taken place against North America (for now), and the establishment of consensual democracies underpinned by the rule of law is proceeding in Afghanistan, Iraq, and reestablishing itself in Lebanon, certainly counter to the goals of establishing a Caliphate, and indeed the true answer to the many pathologies of the region. Autocrats, Socialists and Jihadis and Theocracy's are united in the realization that democratic societies are a threat to their existence through example to the oppressed people. Historically, the last fling of brittle authoritarian regimes is often a desperate gamble on some military adventure in order to deflect attention from the deteriorating conditions at home, and also to fix blame for what is going wrong. You might believe the Iranians are rational, but we could also be looking at a nuclear version of the "last 10 days" in the bunker, only with nuclear weapons.

I like the "last 10 days" reference (seriously). I see what you're saying about the dying throes of regimes, but the same was said of Saddam and look what happened there. I don't put too much stock into the "democracies" in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly the latter. Improvement has been made, undoubtedly, but the real test will be when there isn't a huge foreign military presence shoring up the government. Another big test will be what happens when (or if) an Iraqi or Afghani government adopts policies or practices in contradiction of US wishes - I have a feeling that such an eventuality would bring about a distinct change in US attitudes (and actions) towards Iraqi and Afghani democracies.

The Caliphate ambition has always been unrealistic and I doubt the emergence of "democracies" in Iraq and Afghanistan (or Palestine and Lebanon) makes it any more unrealistic than it already was. The established regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Syria, etc. provide just as much of a stumbling block (if not moreso) to that ambition than any of the aforementioned transition states.

Quote
My economics are actually more towards the Austrian school, but simply looking around at the ever increasing wait times, diminishing levels of service and watching Canadians who have the ability and will going to the US or now India to get medical procedures done, rather than wait several years in pain tells me this system does not work. Socialized medicine is like Socialized groceries, without competition you will be lining up for your ration of health care or bread.

I find the Austrian school's disdain of empiricism to be a little strange - seems to me that similar praxeological-based sects (like rational choice theorists in poli sci) often fall flat on their face because of it. John Crow might be a good example. I agree with your prior statement as to the lack of a link between deficits/debt and economic growth - I heard the same argument from a Keynesian just recently (yes, they still exist it seems).

Quote
When it comes to the relative staying power of civilizations, the West has marshalled and used the resources available more efficiently than anyone else. True, we haven't been very nice about it in the past, although I might wonder how the Aztec conquest of Europe would have played out if such a thing was possible. The Chinese, with many advantages, were unable to capitalize on them, and so English is the language of business and aviation, the Metric system is the only system universally recognized for science and industry etc. etc.

I'm not sure it was a matter of the Chinese not capitalizing so much as it was their insular nature. That being said, the Mongols sure did a bang-up job. I don't really measure a civilization's "success" by its capacity for expansionism. I don't take a Huntington-esque realist view of civilizations where the maxim seems to be "dominate or decline". I find that the inverse seems to be just as true - domination, or the attempt thereof, often seems to trigger decline far faster than the more unambitious approach taken by more insular cultures like the Chinese or Indians. That being said, my knowledge of the varied civilizations' histories is about an inch deep and a mile wide.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chummy on February 13, 2006, 03:16:01
Ah yes, "International Law". When you go to a criminal or civil court, you are seeing the State exercising its power. Without the armed power of the State as an ultimate recourse to compel obedience, how will you receive your justice? If you are awarded a judgement in your favor and the other party balks, the sheriff can seize his chattel property and the offender can be arrested and jailed. Without the recourse to State power, you are SOL.

But where is the overweaning Power to compell a Sovereign State? Even a relative pipsqueak State like Ba'athist Iraq was able to defy "International Law" through the 1990s, with some assistance from the "Oil for Food" crowd to be sure, but since no one was able or willing to compel Saddam Hussein to follow the directives, he simply did not. If Iraq doesn't follow "International Law" without compulsion, then what is to stop Iran from defying "International Law" (and they don't even have nuclear weapons yet!). How about a Sovereign State with vastly more power and resources like China?

I wonder why arguments like this always end up with appeals to the UN. After the complete failure of the UN through the 1990s (Former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Oil for Food, Rwanda, WMD inspections in Iraq, genocide in Dafur...shall I continue?) is there any possible legitimacy left in that organization? For that matter, would you want to give the sort of power required to compel a Sovereign State to a corrupt and profoundly illiberal institution like the UN?

NATO was not a multi-lateral power alliance? What about the G-8? The Anglosphere? The Francaphonie? The British Commonwealth? The world has always had shifting formal and informal alliances, some which are reflected in formal organizations (think back to @400 BC when the Delian League was locked in a series of hot and cold wars with "Sparta and her Allies". All the City-States of Greece were involved, as well as the Persian Empire and many unaffiliated Greek City-States throughout the Mediterranean sea.)

A far more compelling argument is that the inattention of the United States to the external world through the 1990's set the stage for the present state of affairs.

I agree on one level that international law requires the power of the state to back it up. Certainly with respect to a particular resolution involving a non-compliant member, this is true. However, the key to any rule of law is that those bound by it have to feel bound by it, either by agreement or coercion. Otherwise, there is anarchy. International law is really just the set of conventions that most countries agree to live by, but this isn't really any different from the law within a common law country. It's just that international law as a concept is just in its relative infancy.

In the case of states, coercion of a non-compliant member state can come from the group of countries agreeing to abide by UN principles, wielding their collective power. A society full of people who want to be a part of it is always on more solid ground than one having to coerce its members. Your argument seems to presume that the UN would only function if it had the strength to coerce all of its members. I would argue that it is effective on a variety of levels because most countries want to make it work, recognizing it as a means of protecting their internal autonomy so long as certain rules aren't broken (like invading your neighbours). Prevention of genocide was never a part of the original design of the UN, but international convention was definitely taking the UN in that direction. The UN is a radical thing in the history of sovereign states.

Member compliance on specific issues is often the biggest difficulty with the UN, admittedly, but this does not always lead to failure, either. The use of force is contemplated, but, like in a civilized country, limited in its application. Gulf War I was an example. So was Korea. I'm not so naive as to think that there weren't other political forces at work in these examples, but this is true at every level of government down to your local municipality. That's just life.

The positive thing is that the UN provides a means of saving face for countries when they need to point to something to justify their backing away from a hard line position. It provides a way of backing out of a situation that, absent such a safety valve, is more likely to end in war purely by momentum. The UN's biggest success has been as a way of restricting conflict to avoid all out nuclear war. It is only effective to the extent that countries choose to follow it, but it has proven useful on a number of occasions that could have turned out very badly otherwise. Admittedly, and as you point out, it has failed on a number of occasions as well, but these failures in my view are not a valid argument against its existence. For relations between countries, it is the best thing we have, and is worth improving, not abandoning. This is why I see the US backing away from it as a dangerous development, as the UN's most powerful member. This particularly in light of the inevitable decline in the US's relative world power over the next half century.

Of course, states that have common interests will align themselves economically or in strategic arrangements. These can exist within the UN just as cities and provinces exist within a country. However, I would argue that American unilateralism without giving at least a nod to international law is a step backwards on a slippery slope. I don't see any causal relation to support your proposition that the present world is a result of a US failure to project power in the 1990's. The neo-conservative crowd in Washington would certainly like you to believe that. The fact is that Hussein was rendered powerless after Gulf War I, a UN action. Bush Sr. did it the right way. Bush Jr. is going about it the wrong way. 9-11 changed a lot of things, but, following the Bush Sr. model, there would now be a full UN contingent cleaning out Afghanistan of all the terrorist bases, Iraq would remain contained (they had nothing to do with 9-11, and experts are pretty much unanimous that there were no WMD's left), and the US would not be alienating itself. Is Bush Jr's policy really more effective? It seems to display an appalling lack of sophistication.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Technoviking on February 13, 2006, 09:10:41
When the US can actually improve the living conditions of the country they 'liberate', I'll support them. Before that, I'm just stick and tired of it all. Iraq was 10x better off with Sadam in power and that's the truth. Ask anyone who has gone back to Iraq and they'll tell you same thing. People in live in fear and die every day from terrorist attacks. Children are not going to school, essentially a generation has been lost.
I think that's debatable.  The media want stories of suicide bombers, beheadings, etc.  Now, imagine Iraq with the same media scrutiny under Saddam's power.  The gassings, the killings, the torture chambers, etc.  Now, in another analogy, I'm fairly certain that 1938 Germany was a better place to live than 1946 Germany.  And remember, it's the terrorist attacks in Iraq that are making people "live in fear and die every day", not the US.  I'm pretty sure that kidsa re going to school, and so forth.  Besides, the only person I know of who was in Iraq under Saddam's regime was Sean Penn, so really, the truth IS out there, but I doubt that the mass media version of it isn't all that accurate.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 13, 2006, 11:15:52
Chummy, your post is about "what should be" rather than "What is".

The United Nations has been manipulated by its various member states as another tool to support or at least cloak the self interest of Sovereign States. If Saddam Hussein did not have lots of oil and billions of petro dollars to spread around, then "Oil for Food" would never have happened. The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese would not have worked so adamantly to block the enforcement of UN resolutions concerning the disarming of Iraq, or for that matter, would not be working so hard to prevent any international or other actions in Dafur (since the Sudan has...surprise! Oil).

As a BTW, the reason the UN was founded was explicitly to prevent future genocide's like the Holocaust, based on their record,it would seem that only if a powerful State decides to take action on its own then the UN Charter can be fulfilled. The UN's record of preventing wars is likewise undermied by history, and I will argue the only reason things never went nuclear is because Sovereign States with stable constitutional governments constrained by the rule of law had access to them. The ownership of nuclear weapons never stopped either the owning states or their enemies from going to war, there are just more positive constraints in a nation like The US, the UK or France against using them.

We have lots of pre existing mechanisms to join our resources together, my own choice would be to strongly align Canada with the Anglosphere (US, UK, Australia), partners with common histories, cultures and values.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 13, 2006, 12:57:38
We have allies inside Iran itself, and certainly should be offering as much encouragement as possible to the revolutionary movement. If they overthrow the Theocracy, then the movement is legitimate in its own right, a great deal of pressure is taken off democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, and the support for Hamas, Hezboullah and the Jihadis will be cut off at the knees.

While this person is playing up the positives, the situation is quite real and his observations should not be discounted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/steorts200602130807.asp

Quote
Counting the Minutes
A conversation with Iranian dissident Amir Abbas Fakhravar.

Q&A by Jason Lee Steorts

Amir Abbas Fakhravar is one of the most prominent dissidents in Iran. A former medical student and journalist, he was arrested and imprisoned after the publication of his anti-regime book This Place Is Not a Ditch. While on a leave from prison he fled the authorities, and has been on the run ever since. From the Iranian underground, he coordinates the activities of various dissident groups, and for this reason the regime has (according to his knowledge) issued a standing order for the police to shoot him on sight.

Through the help of an Iranian émigré living in California — who wishes to be identified only by her first name, Manda — Fakhravar recently phoned NR deputy managing editor Jason Lee Steorts to discuss Iran's nuclear program, the hopes of the Iranian people, and his life as a fugitive.

National Review Online: What do the Iranians you know think of Iran's nuclear program?

Amir Abbas Fakhravar: The regime is trying hard to tell to everybody that the nuclear activities are like the nationalization of oil 50 years ago. They are telling the world that this is somehow a national interest and that it's something the people want. But it's not like that at all. I'm very much speaking on behalf of the students and the youth that I'm in contact with, and nobody thinks about it like that. We are lacking elementary necessities, schools, hospitals. These are the things we think of as our national interests, not the nuclear program. If this nuclear technology were something coming out of the minds of our own people, and promoted by our own people, we would say O.K., this is by all means our national interest. But it was a technology smuggled in from the borders of Pakistan by people working through A. Q. Khan's network. What I hear from the students, the youngsters who are 70 percent of Iran's population, is that if this were such a national thing, why did the regime spend 18 years hiding it from us? Only two or three years ago we found out that [the regime] was spending billions and billions of dollars in oil revenue on this technology instead of on our basic needs.

NRO: One argument we hear in the West against confronting Iran, whether through sanctions or through military action, is that doing so will make the regime more popular with the Iranian people — that it will actually strengthen the regime.

Fakhravar: Please don't ever say that the people of Iran are going to have resentment or anger in their hearts toward America or Western countries for doing this. That is 100 percent false. To see this, all you need to do is contact some Iranians inside the major cities. Just send your journalists to interview the people in the streets and ask them. It was Saturday [February 4] that the people here found out that Iran was going before the [U.N.] Security Council, and there was celebration all over Tehran. I heard from my own family, the families of my friends, that it was one of the busiest days of the year for the pastry shops — that people were buying pastries and cookies and candies in the streets of Tehran and going to each other to celebrate. They think we have nothing to lose and everything to gain with action that, no matter how long the time period, leads to the downfall of this regime. If you overthrow the regime, we will welcome you with open arms and open hearts. People are counting the minutes for this regime to be over and gone.

NRO: What makes you think you speak for the majority?

Fakhravar: When I go to underground meetings of fellow students and friends of mine, I see that my statements, my books, all the things I and other dissidents have been saying are on the walls of their bedrooms. I hear what they say. They very much give their views. And I meet with other people who are on top of other networks. I meet with representatives of many, many networks, and I know what all of these people are thinking.

NRO: The Iranian regime does a great deal to support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that commit terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. What do the Iranians you know think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and about Iran's role in it?

Fakhravar: We see that the interests of the Palestinians are more important to this regime than the interests of Iranians. When we see a government like that, that has Shehab missiles and parades them through the streets and covers them with cloth threatening "Death to Israel," "Death to America," we don't think this is in the interests of Iran or of anybody. This is purely for [the regime's] own interests. We, all the youngsters, think of other nations — Americans, Israelis, Europeans — as our brothers. We see that two generations have already been lost [since Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979]. In kindergarten, in primary schools, one of the biggest elements they're teaching is that other people's religions are not right, that other people are our enemies. They preach death to America and death to Israel. They praise suicide bombers. This is what they are doing with our culture and our civilization that go back 2,500 years. Nobody trusts the schools or wants to send their children to them. Apart from all the everyday problems people are confronting, besides economic problems, unemployment, inflation, this is the education we see — the education of death.

NRO: What do Iranians think of George W. Bush?

Fakhravar: The people of Iran, especially the youth, are so admiring of Bush and his administration for siding with the people of Iran rather than the government of Iran. No other leader of any government, even the Europeans, took this stand. All the youngsters support him and love him, and we want to express our deepest gratitude for him and his administration and what they are doing to liberate us.

NRO: Are you receiving any support from the U.S. government?

Fakhravar: I cannot mention who, but I'm definitely communicating with some people in the U.S. government and have established contacts with people in the Bush administration.

NRO: Can you say anything about your personal safety and the conditions you live in?

Fakhravar: As I said before, I'm a fugitive on the run and am living in hiding. For years I've been struggling and fighting this regime. I was in the most notorious prison. They broke my knee, they tore my ligament, they broke my nose, so many tortures, and my family has been through so much because of me. My only aid and objective is to see this regime be gone totally — not only a part of it, but the whole regime. I want for my sister and mother and all the women I know to live in freedom. I want my children, when I get married and have a child and he goes to school, to be taught love rather than death. We want to live among all the nations of the world in peace, and we want all the basic freedoms that other countries have right now. We don't want our name to be — whenever people hear "Iranians," a country that had such a civilization and was so respected — now they say Iranians equal terrorists. We don't want our name to be mentioned like that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/steorts200602130807.asp
       

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chummy on February 22, 2006, 22:12:54
Chummy, your post is about "what should be" rather than "What is".

The United Nations has been manipulated by its various member states as another tool to support or at least cloak the self interest of Sovereign States. If Saddam Hussein did not have lots of oil and billions of petro dollars to spread around, then "Oil for Food" would never have happened. The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese would not have worked so adamantly to block the enforcement of UN resolutions concerning the disarming of Iraq, or for that matter, would not be working so hard to prevent any international or other actions in Dafur (since the Sudan has...surprise! Oil).

I think my post is about "what is", but I also agree with you that countries cloak their self-interested actions in the UN. Of course countries act in self interest, as do citizens with representatives in their local government. My point is that there is a utility in having the UN mechanism in place, and I submit that it has been historically useful as a means of saving face for countries who would not have backed out of some situations, and has been capable of defusing situations (sometimes). It is the right direction to be headed. I am saying you can have your cake and eat it too. Nothing is stopping us from aligning ourselves with countries sharing history and values, but that very history and those values point to holding ourselves to rule of law. The alliance should still act in deference to the UN principles, and generally it has until recently. I understand your cynicism regarding international law, but what I am trying to stress is that the UN charter was a major step forward. The current US policy is a throwback to the early 1900's, and dangerous. The US should be taking the high road. Ironically, I also think it would be more secure in so doing.

As a BTW, the reason the UN was founded was explicitly to prevent future genocide's like the Holocaust, based on their record,it would seem that only if a powerful State decides to take action on its own then the UN Charter can be fulfilled. The UN's record of preventing wars is likewise undermied by history, and I will argue the only reason things never went nuclear is because Sovereign States with stable constitutional governments constrained by the rule of law had access to them. The ownership of nuclear weapons never stopped either the owning states or their enemies from going to war, there are just more positive constraints in a nation like The US, the UK or France against using them.

We have lots of pre existing mechanisms to join our resources together, my own choice would be to strongly align Canada with the Anglosphere (US, UK, Australia), partners with common histories, cultures and values.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 22, 2006, 23:54:29
I think my post is about "what is", but I also agree with you that countries cloak their self-interested actions in the UN. Of course countries act in self interest, as do citizens with representatives in their local government. My point is that there is a utility in having the UN mechanism in place, and I submit that it has been historically useful as a means of saving face for countries who would not have backed out of some situations, and has been capable of defusing situations (sometimes).

I am not familier with these historical examples, care to provide some?

Quote
It is the right direction to be headed. I am saying you can have your cake and eat it too. Nothing is stopping us from aligning ourselves with countries sharing history and values, but that very history and those values point to holding ourselves to rule of law. The alliance should still act in deference to the UN principles, and generally it has until recently.

Since the UN itself is not acting according to the rule of law (the various scandals surrounding Kofi Annan should be a big clue, and things like "Oil for Food" or Dafar are another indication of which way they are going).

Quote
I understand your cynicism regarding international law, but what I am trying to stress is that the UN charter was a major step forward. The current US policy is a throwback to the early 1900's, and dangerous. The US should be taking the high road. Ironically, I also think it would be more secure in so doing.

The US was isolationist in the 1900's, and emerged on the world stage under the tutalage of the "Progressives", with President Wilson taking the defining step of entering World War One and remaining engaged in European politics in the aftermath. The true irony is when the US steps aside and alows "multilateralism" to run its course, we see the unravelling of Yugoslavia, the deadlock over North Korea's nuclear program and the absolute failure of diplomacy vs Iran's nuclear ambitions. OF course when the United States steps in and takes action to supress genocide or otherwise enforce the UN charter........

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: TCBF on February 23, 2006, 02:25:02
"... Bush Jr's policy really more effective? It seems to display an appalling lack of sophistication."

- Please, let us not confuse effectiveness with sophistication.  The two are often at odds with each other in the real world.

Ya  know what?  Tonight, emailing a friend, it occured to me that the Iranians might want nukes to protect themselves from whom?  Not the Isrealis or the Yanks.  Who attacked Iran and killed hundreds of thousands?  Iraq, thats who.  And who is to say what might happen in the future if the American plan for Iraq goes awry?

So... my conclusion: The country which has the most to benefit from a sucessful American democracy building exercise in Iraq is... Iran.

Tom
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chummy on February 23, 2006, 03:38:30
I am not familier with these historical examples, care to provide some?

The Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the most important example of the UN being instrumental in the process that resulted in the situation being diffused with the parties saving face. It was by no means the whole story, but played a key role. It is, of course, always harder to prove a negative ("when did someone NOT do something because..."), but the fact that, when the security council appeals for a cease fire and offers peacekeepers, and the (usually losing) side invites this, it is difficult for the other side to continue on fighting. The result is that real estate seldom changes hands in a permanent way as a result of the war. The Arab Israeli and Indo Pakistani conflicts have been relatively short and did not result in a significant change of borders at least in part due to the deterrent value of the Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council's diplomatic intervention. The UN never recognized the annexation of East Timor by India, and after 26 years East Timor was independent again.

The implication is that this possibility makes invading your neighbour a less viable extension of politics (for you Clausewitz fans). It saves face by providing the reason not to fight. I am the first to admit that this only happens when the great powers of the day go along with it (Iraq 1), the war doesn't happen within only one of their spheres of influence, or as in Korea in the 50's, one of them boycotts the security council vote.  My argument is not that the UN is perfect, just that the international law for which it is a repository, which says that sovereign states do not invade each other as its cardinal rule, is the correct way to go. I can't emphasize enough, I am fully aware of the organizations shortcomings.

To extend this, what would the post 9-11 world look like if the US had followed UN rules? I think terrorists routed in Afghanistan with a full UN force sympathetic to the US; Iraq would still be contained, and the US would have more resources to do other (legal) things with its military - maybe act as part of a UN force to stop some future Iranian aggression, who knows? Or force real inspections of Iran with full UN cooperation? Anyway, we can "what if" until the cows come home...

Since the UN itself is not acting according to the rule of law (the various scandals surrounding Kofi Annan should be a big clue, and things like "Oil for Food" or Dafar are another indication of which way they are going).


I don't follow the logic. The Liberals broke the law, so Canada is not a country founded on the rule of law?

The US was isolationist in the 1900's, and emerged on the world stage under the tutalage of the "Progressives", with President Wilson taking the defining step of entering World War One and remaining engaged in European politics in the aftermath. The true irony is when the US steps aside and alows "multilateralism" to run its course, we see the unravelling of Yugoslavia, the deadlock over North Korea's nuclear program and the absolute failure of diplomacy vs Iran's nuclear ambitions. OF course when the United States steps in and takes action to supress genocide or otherwise enforce the UN charter........


At the risk of misdirecting this thread, these are some very sweeping statements. Can you expand on how "multilateralism" resulted in the unravelling of Yugo, North Korea, and how all diplomatic recourse has been exhausted in Iran, or in the interest of brevity provide cites for further reading? Admittedly, when the US fails to commit resources to the UN and pay its dues, it makes it difficult for the UN to carry out its mandate, but that's part of the problem with going it alone all the time... and we're back to wondering how long the US resources will hold out for them to carry on imposing pax americana...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Rodders on February 23, 2006, 12:55:00
And who is to say what might happen in the future if the American plan for Iraq goes awry?

Or if the American plan goes as they wish.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on February 23, 2006, 15:47:59
The Cuban Missile Crisis is probably the most important example of the UN being instrumental in the process that resulted in the situation being diffused with the parties saving face. It was by no means the whole story, but played a key role. It is, of course, always harder to prove a negative ("when did someone NOT do something because..."), but the fact that, when the security council appeals for a cease fire and offers peacekeepers, and the (usually losing) side invites this, it is difficult for the other side to continue on fighting. The result is that real estate seldom changes hands in a permanent way as a result of the war. The Arab Israeli and Indo Pakistani conflicts have been relatively short and did not result in a significant change of borders at least in part due to the deterrent value of the Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council's diplomatic intervention. The UN never recognized the annexation of East Timor by India, and after 26 years East Timor was independent again.

The Cuban Missile Crisis? The USSR backed down when the US signaled its resolve with the naval blockade of Cuba, and the implicit threat that if things went any farther General Curtis LeMay would be unleashed to turn Cuba, the USSR and probably China into radioactive rubble. (Don't forget the Russians were in Cuba in the first place because they did not have a credible strike force at the time). I will argue the Arab-Israeli wars were short because of the limited objectives of the Israelis, not to mention the limited logistical base of all players (unless their patrons, the USSR and the United States were willing to pour resources into the fight, see the Yom Kippur war), similarly the Indo-Pakistani conflicts. Since there is still a low level state of hostilities in these regions, with outbreaks of active fighting, I don't see where the UN has had any effect. (Palestinian, Iranian and other Arab governments, for the most part, still refuse to recognize Israel, and continue hostilities using a terrorist/insurgency model since that is what they can support). As for East Timor, the UN made comforting noises for 26 years but it was Anglosphere troops that actually came ashore, fought against Indonesian "militias" and troops and helped to secure East Timor as an independent nation.

The ultimate arbitrator in these cases isn't the UN, it is some one nation or group of nations using armed force to get the solution they want.

Quote
The implication is that this possibility makes invading your neighbour a less viable extension of politics (for you Clausewitz fans). It saves face by providing the reason not to fight. I am the first to admit that this only happens when the great powers of the day go along with it (Iraq 1), the war doesn't happen within only one of their spheres of influence, or as in Korea in the 50's, one of them boycotts the security council vote.  My argument is not that the UN is perfect, just that the international law for which it is a repository, which says that sovereign states do not invade each other as its cardinal rule, is the correct way to go. I can't emphasize enough, I am fully aware of the organizations shortcomings.

Egypt kicked the UN troops out of the Sinai which was a good signal they were preparig to go to war, and the Croats (and to a lesser extent the Serbs) had no issues rolling over UN "peacekeepers" to reach their objectives in the civil wars of the 1990s. Somali warlords ignored the UN until President George H.W. Bush landed 20,000 Marines, and when they left, it was open season on "peacekeepers" again. I could mention how closely Argentina and the UK followed UN direction in the Falklands. The list of examples is pretty long.....
 
Quote
To extend this, what would the post 9-11 world look like if the US had followed UN rules? I think terrorists routed in Afghanistan with a full UN force sympathetic to the US; Iraq would still be contained, and the US would have more resources to do other (legal) things with its military - maybe act as part of a UN force to stop some future Iranian aggression, who knows? Or force real inspections of Iran with full UN cooperation? Anyway, we can "what if" until the cows come home...

It is easy to demonstrate there was little or no enthusiasm in the UN for any of those projects, but the real giveaway is the little parenthetic inclusion of (legal). The Congress of the United States voted in favor of going to war, so it is as legal as it is going to get. In a more metaphysical sense, self defense is ALWAYS legal, and only a government willing to protect its citizens can be truly thought of as legitimate. In the UN club, just sitting in the capital is legitimacy enough, and no one inside the UN is going to look too closely at the internal conduct of these nations who torture, starve or otherwise abuse the rights of their citizens.

Quote
I don't follow the logic. The Liberals broke the law, so Canada is not a country founded on the rule of law?

Founded on the rule of law, but drifting away. If you really want to play "what if", imagine if the Liberals had won this election, and were free to continue looting the public purse without constraint and impose social engineering through the courts without parliamentary challenge or oversight. (The normal chain of events is that parliament legislates, the courts apply the law; this seems to have been turned on its head)

Quote
At the risk of misdirecting this thread, these are some very sweeping statements. Can you expand on how "multilateralism" resulted in the unravelling of Yugo, North Korea, and how all diplomatic recourse has been exhausted in Iran, or in the interest of brevity provide cites for further reading?

EU and then UN efforts to stop the Yugoslavian Civil war were ineffective, and the wars only ended when the US finally decided they did "have a dog in this fight" and sent a divisional sized task force to impose order. Notice I was in Bosnia as part of an effort to enforce the "Dayton Accord" (as in Dayton, Ohio, USA) and not the "Montreal" or "Paris" accords. The Kosovo air campaign was entirely a NATO affair, with no UN input. North Korea is essentially a cats paw for the Chinese to alternately threaten or sooth their neighbours, the so called six party talks have amounted to a big zero in the results column. Iran has resisted all efforts to contain its nuclear ambition, breaking the seals and disabling the monitoring of the IAEC and stalling efforts by the EU to stop or divert the program until they either enrich enough uranium to do the deed; or get the Europeans to concede that Iran can develop nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: RossF on February 24, 2006, 19:30:28
The Guess. Very good article you wrote. You have really good points

I'm pretty sure the name reads "The Guest"..
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: The Gues-|- on March 05, 2006, 01:43:22
The Washington Post:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1139395531778&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

US to present Iran with 30-day ultimatum


The United States will present a 30-day ultimatum to the UN Security Council this week, the Washington Post reported Saturday, calling on Iran to cease with its nuclear program.

It was reported however, that the US would not request further economic sanctions on Iran.

Iran and the European Union inched toward a compromise Friday that diplomats said would allow Tehran to run a scaled-down version of a uranium enrichment program with potential for misuse to develop atomic weapons.

The development was significant because the Europeans and the United States have for years opposed allowing Iran any kind of enrichment capability - a stance that Russia, China and other influential nations have embraced in recent months.

Top European officials - including the foreign ministers of France and Germany - publicly described talks Friday in Vienna as failing because of Tehran's refusal to reimpose a freeze on enrichment.

"Unfortunately we were not able to reach an agreement," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told reporters. He said the EU continues to demand "full and complete suspension" of uranium enrichment and related activities that have fed fears that Iran may be pursuing nuclear arms.

Germany's Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the meeting ended, after just over two hours, "without achieving a result."

But diplomats familiar with the talks told The Associated Press that after months of deadlock, the two sides explored possible agreement by discussing plans that essentially would allow Iran small-scale enrichment after reimposing its freeze for an undefined period.

The compromise would serve Iran, the European Union and Russia by allowing all of them to say they had achieved their main goals.

Iran would be able to run a program it insists it has a right to under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if it is only on a research basis instead of the full-scale enrichment.

The Europeans, who since 2004 have negotiated for Iran to scrap enrichment, could tolerate small-scale enrichment if Iran first agrees to their key demand - a freeze to re-establish confidence.

Moscow could benefit diplomatically and economically if Iran accepts its plan to move its enrichment program to Russia - except for activities defined as research and development that all sides agree on under any compromise plan.

One of the diplomats - who demanded anonymity in exchange for divulging the substance of the confidential discussion - said the impetus came from Moscow, which has taken the lead in talking to Iran since talks with the Europeans collapsed late last year.

He said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was to float the compromise plan in Washington on Monday and Tuesday to gauge American reaction.

Consensus on such a compromise by the Russians, Europeans and Iranians could leave the Americans with two unpalatable choices.

If Washington accepts the plan, it essentially leaves Iran in a position to develop technology that it could use to make fissile uranium for warheads.

If it refuses, it again could face diplomatic near-isolation on what to do about Iran after months of building the kind of international consensus that last month led the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board to put the UN Security Council on alert about Iran's suspect nuclear program.

By depriving the Iranians of domestic control of enrichment, the Russian plan - backed by most in the international community including the US and the Europeans - is meant to eliminate the danger that Tehran might misuse it to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

Small-scale enrichment under a compromise would deprive Iran of the chance to run the thousands of centrifuges needed to enrich in sufficient amounts to give them material for multiple weapons. But it would allow them to perfect the methodology, should they later decide to start industrial-scale enrichment.

Iran restarted some enrichment activities last month, two years after voluntarily freezing the program during talks with the Europeans. Those talks unraveled late last year.

A report last week by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei showed Iran testing centrifuges - machines that spin uranium gas into enriched uranium.

And just a few months down the road, "commencement of the installation of the first 3,000 ... (centrifuges) is planned for the fourth quarter of 2006," the report said.

Experts estimate that Iran already has enough black-market components in storage to build the 1,500 operating centrifuges it would need to make the 20 kilograms (45 pounds) of highly enriched uranium needed for one crude weapon.

Tehran insists it wants enrichment only to generate electricity and that it does not seek nuclear arms, but a growing number of nations share US fears that that is not the case.

While Russia backed alerting the Security Council to Iran, it remains reluctant to press for tough action against Tehran, an economic and strategic partner. Lavrov said Friday that permanent council members were not united on a course of action.

"There is no collectively discussed and agreed strategy of what we all will be doing in the Security Council if the issue is there," Lavrov told foreign reporters, hinting at his country's opposition to increasing pressure on Tehran.

The IAEA's board is to discuss the Iran issue at a meeting beginning Monday, including the ElBaradei report. The board notified the UN Security Council Feb. 4, after Iran refused to heed requests to maintain a suspension on enrichment.

There had been little hope the Vienna meeting would achieve a breakthrough. Both sides had made clear before that they would not move from their positions; the Europeans demanded Tehran freeze all enrichment activities and Iran insisted it would not.

A Russian nuclear agency official, who spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media, confirmed the Moscow talks remained snagged over the same issue - Iran's refusal to freeze enrichment at home.

Still, Lavrov hinted at the chances of compromise detailed to the AP, saying Friday that a deal with Iran was still possible before the IAEA meeting.

"There always is an opportunity to reach an agreement," the Interfax news agency quoted Lavrov as saying in Moscow.

In Vienna, ElBaradei said he was "hopeful" of a negotiated solution after meeting with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, while the Iranian representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, described the talks with the Europeans as "fruitful."


Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: The Gues-|- on March 05, 2006, 15:08:20
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/05/wiran05.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/05/ixportal.html

How we duped the West, by Iran's nuclear negotiator

The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.

In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.

He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.

"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.

Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations.

The judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the final step before Iran's case is passed to the UN Security Council, where sanctions may be considered.

In his address to the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Mr Rowhani appears to have been seeking to rebut criticism from hardliners that he gave too much ground in talks with the European troika. The contents of the speech were published in a regime journal that circulates among the ruling elite.

He told his audience: "When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Teheran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site. There was plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."

America and its European allies believe that Iran is clandestinely developing an atomic bomb but Teheran insists it is merely seeking nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran's negotiating team engaged in a last-ditch attempt last week to head off Security Council involvement. In January the regime removed IAEA seals on sensitive nuclear equipment and last month it resumed banned uranium enrichment.

Iran is trying to win support from Russia, which opposes any UN sanctions, having unsuccessfully tried to persuade European leaders to give them more time. Against this backdrop, Mr Rowhani's surprisingly candid comments on Iran's record of obfuscation and delay are illuminating.

He described the regime's quandary in September 2003 when the IAEA had demanded a "complete picture" of its nuclear activities. "The dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the UN Security Council," he said. "And not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have been referred to the Security Council for not implementing the resolution."

Mr Rowhani disclosed that on at least two occasions the IAEA obtained information on secret nuclear-related experiments from academic papers published by scientists involved in the work.

The Iranians' biggest setback came when Libya secretly negotiated with America and Britain to close down its nuclear operations. Mr Rowhani said that Iran had bought much of its nuclear-related equipment from "the same dealer" - a reference to the network of A Q Khan, the rogue Pakistani atomic scientist. From information supplied by Libya, it became clear that Iran had bought P2 advanced centrifuges.

In a separate development, the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has obtained a copy of a confidential parliamentary report making clear that Iranian MPs were also kept in the dark on the nuclear programme, which was funded secretly, outside the normal budgetary process.

Mohammad Mohaddessin, the NCRI's foreign affairs chief, told the Sunday Telegraph: "Rowhani's remarks show that the mullahs wanted to deceive the international community from the onset of negotiations with EU3 - and that the mullahs were fully aware that if they were transparent, the regime's nuclear file would be referred to the UN immediately."

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on March 05, 2006, 15:41:13
The US wants the UN to issue Iran with a deadline. Later this year Iran will have 3000 centrifuge's enriching uranium.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on March 05, 2006, 16:43:02
Waiting for the UN to take action on this issue will be like waiting for the Un to take action on Dafur, send aid to the Tsunami victims, find and punish the perpetrators of "Oil for Food"....shall we go on?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chris Pook on March 05, 2006, 17:48:48
a_majoor, the problem is, rightly or wrongly, the only way that action can be taken is if a "check list" has been completed.  One of the boxes on that check list reads "UN".

Those people that are in a position to take action - the people of the OECD generally - are not yet convinced that their fear of consequences is outweighed by their need/desire to act. Thus they choose to accept delay and prevarication: anything to allow them to continue in the belief that "it may never happen".  The UN check box allows them to deny a little longer.  It is conceivable that it will take a mighty big shock to convince them of the need to act.

Unfortunately, a smart foe can inflict fatal damage by the continuous application of force at low levels.  These low level applications have the joint advantages of both causing movement and also inuring the target to the application of higher levels of force.  Applying higher levels of force speeds the movement and permits the use of still higher levels of force.  Ultimately the target is eliminated and was never aware of anything other than a generalized sense of discomfort and unease.

The counter may have to be the shocking application of force, in the face of public opinion, or else a longer game played at low levels that generate similar generalized sense of unease, but nothing that the public is sufficiently exercised about to oppose directly.  In the first instance failure or even too high a price can risk alienating the population to such an extent that the government is denied the opportunity to act, even if it is in the long term interest of the population.  In the second case the government may survive long enough to act in a measured fashion.

Thus we end up with a combination of the Cold War and the "Great Game" of the 19th century.  Economics, Politics, Covert work and Policing with only the occasional resort to open clash of arms.  Such long wars, decade and century long struggles for dominance are actually the norm.  The periods of open conflict that punctuate these struggles,  when armies confront armies in open combat, might actually be seen as often being the point at which the long term strategy has failed,  the force has become sufficiently apparent to the population under threat, that it is prepared to support military action through personal sacrifice and through taxes.

This current period in our history looks to me as if it has significant parallels with the struggle between Paris and London that commenced with the arrival of Richelieu in 1624 and didn't really end until the Entente Cordiale of 1904.  And some argue that the struggle continues.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on March 08, 2006, 17:16:18
Today brought nothing more then new troubles as Iran stated that the USA will feel pain if they cause Iran to feel pain.

I think that Egypt and Syria could be decding factors in this mess.  If Egypt condems Iran then the rest of the major Arab nations will probably follow suit.  If Syria says it wants to stay out of what it sees as purley national interest then the USA, Isreal could have a fairly free hand in dealing with Iran but if the other players don't pipe up then i think you will see (or hear) a lot more of the behind the scenes activities.

MOO
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on March 09, 2006, 05:50:17
Or maybe they just need to dance.....

http://www.glumbert.com/media/rave.html
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on March 09, 2006, 12:11:53
Do you ever get the feeling that Iran is just seeing how far they can push this before they get burned?

I mean saying you want to a nation wiped off the face of the earth.

Basically telling the Western powers that you don't care what they think you are going after a nuclear program anyway.

I think they are taking advantage of a overextened US military and a Europe that is as divided now as it has ever been in the past when dealing with rouge nations.

Of course that is just my MOO
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on March 15, 2006, 10:51:06
Look's like the united front so far exhibited by the US and our allies may be causing friction within the Iranian leadership.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/international/middleeast/15iran.html?ex=1300078800&en=563a2470b4397d6c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on March 15, 2006, 16:01:19
Could it be that they are just trying to make a cash grab?  Kim Jong Il has been successful leveraging concessions with his nuclear sabre rattling.  I bet Iran would love some of that kind of leverage.  Maybe they didn't realize how much friction they were going to encounter, but their leader is not really leaving himself too many avenues for retreat.  That's the kind of thing that can lead to a "sudden heart attack"  or a high velocity lead stroke and end up in political change.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Wizard of OZ on March 16, 2006, 13:15:54
High velocity lead Stroke, I like that.  I think he has a better chance of being stung by a bunch of lead bees from a parade apperance but that is my MOO.

This guy is well and beyond Kim Jong Il, I mean even Kim did not think he could wipe a nation of people off the face of the earth in public.  I really think this guy lifes in a shell.  It had better be thick cause his whole world could come crashing down around him.

 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on March 16, 2006, 17:24:29
This article was posted elsewhere, but I think it deserves a spot on this thread:

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

Quote
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
by Krassimir Petrov
 
I. Economics of Empires

A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms—usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods—the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960’s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ’s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax—the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of “severing the link between the dollar and gold”, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond— the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil.
As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren’t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush’s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields—he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have went into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished—he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.


II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

· The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.

· The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

· The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro – the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.

· The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.

Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter—those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs—will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation’s exchange:

· Sabotaging the Exchange—this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.

· Coup d’état—this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.

· Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations—this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d’etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.

· Joint U.N. War Resolution—this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.

· Unilateral Nuclear Strike—this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.

· Unilateral Total War—this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria.

Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis—between deflation and hyperinflation—it will be forced fast either to take its “classical medicine” by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

The Austrian theory of money, credit, and business cycles teaches us that there is no in-between Scylla and Charybdis. Sooner or later, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept Black Hawk pilot, will choose inflation. Helicopter Ben, oblivious to Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression, has nonetheless mastered the lessons of the Great Depression and the annihilating power of deflations. The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem—to inflate, come hell or high water. He has even taught the Japanese his own ingenious unconventional ways to battle the deflationary liquidity trap. Like his mentor, he has dreamed of battling a Kondratieff Winter. To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses; he will recall all helicopters from the 800 overseas U.S. military bases; and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency and from its ashes will rise the next reserve currency of the world—that barbarous relic called gold.

And to immediately address the question that is going to come up "Well then why are Germany, France, etc. getting involved with the Iran nuclear issue?" I would think that they are very aware of their dependance upon the United States' economic well being.

... just a few notes as well. The date for the opening has been pushed back to mid to late 2006, and it will initially take euros and dollars, with an eventual move to all euros. Further, the european union would have to cooperate by printing massive amounts of euros to keep up with demand. Given the mentioned effect this would have on the US economy, and the Europeans dependance upon it... I don't see that happening.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on March 16, 2006, 17:43:13
This is a link to the IAEA Report: "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran". This was recently sent to the Security Council for review.

It is available at http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

An expert below:

Quote
B. Current overall assessment

46. A detailed overall assessment of Iran’s nuclear programme and the Agency’s efforts to verify
Iran’s declarations with respect to that programme was provided by the Director General in November
200422 and again in September 2005.23 As indicated in those reports, Iran has made substantial efforts
over the past two decades to master an independent nuclear fuel cycle, and, to that end, has conducted
experiments to acquire the know-how for almost every aspect of the fuel cycle. Many aspects of Iran’s
nuclear fuel cycle activities and experiments, particularly in the areas of uranium enrichment, uranium
conversion and plutonium research, had not been declared to the Agency in accordance with Iran’s
obligations under its Safeguards Agreement. Iran’s policy of concealment continued until October
2003, and resulted in many breaches of its obligation to comply with that Agreement, as summarized
in the Director General’s report of September 2005.24

47. Since October 2003, Iran has taken corrective actions with respect to those breaches. The Agency
has been able to confirm certain aspects of Iran’s current declarations, in particular in connection with
uranium conversion activities, laser enrichment, fuel fabrication and the heavy water research reactor
programme, which the Agency has been following up as routine implementation matters under Iran’s
Safeguards Agreement and, until 6 February 2006, its Additional Protocol.

48. Two important issues were identified in the Director General’s November 2004 report as relevant
to the Agency’s efforts to provide assurance that there are no undeclared enrichment activities in Iran,
specifically: the origin of LEU and HEU particle contamination found at various locations in Iran; and
the extent of Iran’s efforts to import, manufacture and use centrifuges of both the P-1 and P-2 designs.
49. With respect to the first issue — contamination — as indicated above, based on the information
currently available to the Agency, the results of the environmental sample analysis tend, on balance, to
support Iran’s statement about the foreign origin of most of the observed HEU contamination. It is still
not possible at this time, however, to establish a definitive conclusion with respect to all of the
contamination, particularly the LEU contamination. This underscores the importance of additional
information on the scope and chronology of Iran’s P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programmes, which could
greatly contribute to the resolution of the remaining contamination issues.

50. With respect to the second issue — the P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programmes — although some
progress has been made since November 2004 in the verification of statements by Iran regarding the
chronology of its centrifuge enrichment programme, the Agency has not yet been able to verify the
correctness and completeness of Iran’s statements concerning those programmes. While Iran has
provided further clarifications, and access to additional documentation, concerning the 1987 and mid-
1990s offers related to the P-1 design, the Agency’s investigation of the supply network indicates that
Iran should have additional supporting information that could be useful in this regard. Iran has also
been asked to provide additional details on the process that led to Iran’s decision in 1985 to pursue
centrifuge enrichment and on the steps leading to its acquisition of centrifuge enrichment technology
in 1987. However, Iran maintains that no information, other than that already provided to the Agency,
exists.

51. No additional information or documentation has been provided with respect to Iran’s statement
that it did not pursue any work on the P-2 design between 1995 and 2002. As indicated above, Iran has
been requested to search for more information, and any supporting documentation, relevant to the P-2
programme, in particular with regard to the scope of the original offer in connection with the P-2
centrifuge design and Iran’s acquisition of items linked to that programme. Iran, however, maintains
that no such information exists.

52. The Agency continues to follow up on all information pertaining to Iran’s nuclear programme and
activities. Although absent some nexus to nuclear material the Agency’s legal authority to pursue the
verification of possible nuclear weapons related activity is limited, the Agency has continued to seek
Iran’s cooperation as a matter of transparency in following up on reports related to equipment,
materials and activities which have applications both in the conventional military area and in the
civilian sphere as well as in the nuclear military area. In this regard, Iran has permitted the Agency to
visit defence related sites at Kolahdouz, Lavisan and Parchin. The Agency did not observe any
unusual activities in the buildings visited at Kolahdouz and Parchin, and the results of environmental
sampling did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations. The Agency is still
assessing the available information, and awaiting other additional information, in relation to the
Lavisan site and the PHRC.

53. As indicated to the Board in November 2004, and again in September 2005, all the declared
nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for. Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of
nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point
in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.
The process of drawing such a conclusion, under normal circumstances, is a time consuming process
even with an Additional Protocol in force. In the case of Iran, this conclusion can be expected to take
even longer in light of the undeclared nature of Iran’s past nuclear programme, and in particular
because of the inadequacy of information available on its centrifuge enrichment programme, the
existence of a generic document related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components, and the lack
of clarification about the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, including, as mentioned
above, about recent information available to the Agency concerning alleged weapon studies that could
involve nuclear material.

54. It is regrettable, and a matter of concern, that the above uncertainties related to the scope and
nature of Iran’s nuclear programme have not been clarified after three years of intensive Agency
verification. In order to clarify these uncertainties, Iran’s full transparency is still essential. Without
full transparency that extends beyond the formal legal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and
Additional Protocol — transparency that could only be achieved through Iran’s active cooperation —
the Agency’s ability to reconstruct the history of Iran’s past programme and to verify the correctness
and completeness of the statements made by Iran, particularly with regard to its centrifuge enrichment
programme, will be limited, and questions about the past and current direction of Iran’s nuclear
programme will continue to be raised. Such transparency should primarily include access to, and
cooperation by, relevant individuals; access to documentation related to procurement and dual use
equipment; and access to certain military owned workshops and R&D locations that the Agency may
need to visit in the future as part of its investigation.

You'll notice that the only thing that Iran can reliably be accused of is possessing documents and materials which could be used to manufacture p-2 centrifuges, and having a non-technical document dating from the 80's about how to form Uranium into hemispheres. The p-2 centrifuges can be easily explained by their want for domestic nuclear energy, however, the document is troubling, though it has been sealed by the IAEA (and is certainly not proof of any wrongdoing).
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on March 16, 2006, 17:48:07
Another interesting article, from the same author who correctly predicted the war in Iraq well before it happened (available at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html, "Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: 
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth")

http://www.energybulletin.net/2913.html

Quote
The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
by William Clark

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.
 

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market


"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
Madison’s words of wisdom should be carefully considered by the American people and world community. The rapidly deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq portends an even direr situation for American soldiers and the People of the world community - should the Bush administration pursue their strategy regarding Iran. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro system" for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, upcoming operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 statements by former administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a "petroeuro." However, subsequent events show this strategy to be fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving forward towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia discusses this option.

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. [1] In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed in Iraq.

Indeed, the author’s original pre-war hypothesis was validated shortly after the war in a Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the five US major media conglomerates who appear to censor this type of information, but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

"The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar." [2]
Unfortunately, it has become clear that yet another manufactured war, or some type of ill-advised covert operation is inevitable under President George W. Bush, should he win the 2004 Presidential Election. Numerous news reports over the past several months have revealed that the neoconservatives are quietly - but actively - planning for the second petrodollar war, this time against Iran.


"Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries"…"Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran."

"…administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran - by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled "draft" or "working draft" to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level." [3]
To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil ‘marker’ as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the spring of 2003, Iran has required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports - although the oil pricing for trades are still denominated in the dollar. [4]

Therefore, a potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran’s intentions to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word "bourse" refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.

The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data).

Acknowledging that many of the oil contracts for Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to the United Kingdom’s Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a significant shift in the flow of international commerce into the Middle East. If Iran’s bourse becomes a successful alternative for oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a factor not overlooked in the following article:


"Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and OPEC producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange."

"…He [Mr. Asemipour] played down the dangers that the new exchange could eventually pose for the IPE or Nymex, saying he hoped they might be able to cooperate in some way."

"…Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility.

The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. "We would not have any comment to make on it at this stage," said an IPE spokeswoman. "[5]
It is unclear at the time of writing, if this project will be successful, or could it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions - thereby signaling the second phase of petrodollar warfare in the Middle East. News articles in June 2004 revealed the discredited neoconservative sycophant Ahmed Chalabi may have revealed his knowledge to Iran regarding U.S. military planning for operations against that nation.


"The reason for the US breakup with Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could be his leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran before Christmas 2005, but the American government has not changed its objective, and the attack could happen earlier if president George W. Bush is re-elected, or later if John Kerry is sworn in."

"….Diplomats said Chalabi was alerted to the Pentagon plans and in the process of trying to learn more to tell the Iranians, he invited suspicions of US officials, who subsequently got the Iraqi police to raid the compound of his Iraqi National Congress on 20 May 2004, leading to a final break up of relations."

"While the US is uncertain how much of the attack plans were leaked to Iran, it could change some of the invasion tactics, but the broad parameters would be kept intact." [6]
Regardless of the potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle East is not entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. According to Mohammad Javad Asemipour, an advisor to Iran’s oil ministry and the individual responsible for this project, this new oil exchange is scheduled to begin oil trading in March 2005.


"Asemipour said the platform should be trading crude, natural gas and petrochemicals by the start of the new Iranian year, which falls on March 21, 2005.

He said other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries - Iran is the producer group's second-largest producer behind Saudi Arabia - as well as oil producers from the Caspian region would eventually participate in the exchange." [7]
(Note: the most recent Iranian news report from October 5, 2004 stated: "Iran's oil bourse will start trading by early 2006" which suggests a delay from the original March 21, 2005 target date). [8] Additionally, according to the following report, Saudi investors may be interested in participating in the Iranian oil exchange market, further illustrating why petrodollar hegemony is becoming unsustainable.


"Chris Cook, who previously worked for the IPE and now offers consultancy services to markets through Partnerships Consulting LLP in London, commented: "Post-9/11, there has also been an interest in the project from the Saudis, who weren't interested in participating before."

"Others familiar with Iran's economy said since 9/11, Saudi Arabian investors are opting to invest in Iran rather than traditional western markets as the kingdom's relations with the U.S. have weakened Iran's oil ministry has made no secret of its eagerness to attract much needed foreign investment in its energy sector and broaden its choice of oil buyers."

"…Along with several other members of OPEC, Iranian oil officials believe crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the IPE is controlled by the oil majors and big financial companies, who benefit from market volatility."[9]
One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in 2005 or 2006, when it appears international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $50 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for €37 - €40 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar - and assumes that some sort of "intervention" is not undertaken against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades

During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros. [10] He stated this would be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU’s proposed expansion plans were successful. (Note: Both of the later two criteria have transpired: the euro’s valuation has been above the dollar since late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004 from 12 to 22 countries). In the meantime, the United Kingdom remains uncomfortably juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers (Paris/Frankfurt).

The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse (exchange) in 2005/2006 – if successful in utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency standard – essentially negates the necessity of the previous two criteria as described by Mr. Yarjani regarding the solidification of a "petroeuro" system for international oil trades. [10] It should also be noted that during 2003-2004 Russia and China have both increased their central bank holdings of the euro currency, which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World Reserve currency. [11] [12] In the meantime, the United Kingdom is uncomfortable juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. (New York/Washington) banking nexus and that of the E.U. financial center (Paris/Frankfurt).

The immediate question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 in an effort to prevent the formation of a euro-denominated crude oil pricing mechanism? Commentators in India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention potential effects on the U.S. economy.


"The giving up on the terror war while Iran invasion plans are drawn up makes no sense, especially since the previous invasion and current occupation of Iraq has further fuelled Al-Qaeda terrorism after 9/11."

"…It is obvious that sucked into Iraq, the US has limited military manpower left to combat the Al-Qaeda elsewhere in the Middle East and South Central Asia,"…"and NATO is so seriously cross with America that it hesitates to provides troops in Iraq, and no other country is willing to bail out America outside its immediate allies like Britain, Italy, Australia and Japan."

"….If it [U.S.] intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to improve the situation – Iraq shows America has not the depth or patience to create a new civil society – and will only make matters worse."

"There is a better way, as the constructive engagement of Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has shown…."Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently, and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic intervention, if at all." [13]
It is abundantly clear that a 2nd Bush term will bring a confrontation and possible war with Iran during 2005. Colin Powell as the Secretary of the State, has moderated neoconservative military designs regarding Iran, but Powell has stated that he will be leaving at the end of Bush’s first term. Of course if John Kerry wins in November, he might pursue a similar military strategy. However, it is my opinion that Kerry is more likely to pursue multilateral negotiations regarding the Iranian issues.

Clearly, there are numerous risks regarding neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz. [14] In the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more. World oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption would escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global Depression. Why are the neoconservatives willing to takes such risks? Simply stated - their goal is U.S. global domination.

A successful Iranian bourse would solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an ‘Operation Iranian Freedom,’ or perhaps an attempted CIA-sponsored repeat of the 1953 Iranian coup – operation "Ajax" part II. [15] Indeed, there are very good reasons for U.S. military leaders to be "horrified" at the thought of a second Bush term in which Cheney and the neoconservatives would be unrestrained in their tragic pursuit of U.S. global domination.


"NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating." [16]
Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate "interventions," it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the U.S to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey Institute of International Studies provided an extensive analysis of the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and warned of the following:


"Considering the extensive financial and national policy investment Iran has committed to its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that an attack by Israel or the United States would result in immediate retaliation. A likely scenario includes an immediate Iranian missile counterattack on Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to destabilize Iraq and foment all-out confrontation between the United States and Iraq's Shi'i majority. Iran could also opt to destabilize Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with a significant Shi'i population, and induce Lebanese Hizbullah to launch a series of rocket attacks on Northern Israel."

"…An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term"…"one thing is for certain, it would not be just another Osirak. " [17]
Synopsis

Regardless of whatever choice the U.S. electorate makes in the upcoming Presidential Election a military expedition may still go ahead.

This essay was written out of my own patriotic duty in an effort to inform Americans of the challenges that lie ahead. On November 25, 2004, the issues involving Iran's nuclear program will be addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and possibly referred to the U.N. Security Council if the results are unsatisfactory. Regardless of the IAEA findings, it appears increasingly likely the U.S. will use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq.

Pentagon sources confirm the Bush administration could undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades. The later would require forced "regime change" and the U.S. occupation of Iran. Obviously this would require a military draft. Objectively speaking, the post-war debacle in Iraq has clearly shown that such Imperial policies will be a catastrophic failure. Alternatively, perhaps a more enlightened U.S. administration could undertake multilateral negotiations with the EU and OPEC regarding a dual oil-currency system, in conjunction with global monetary reform. Either way, U.S. policy makers will soon face two difficult choices: monetary compromise or continued petrodollar warfare.


"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

- Abraham Lincoln

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

- Thomas Jefferson

 


References:

[1] "Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth," January 2003 (updated January 2004) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

[2] Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, "Iraq returns to the international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003 http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/...

[3] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/

[4] Shivkumar, C., "Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms," The Hindu Business Line (June 16, 2003). http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/2003061702380500.htm

[5] Macalister, Terry, "Iran takes on west's control of oil trading," The [UK] Guardian, June 16, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html

[6] "US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 9, 2004 http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=2789

[7] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse; IPE Chairman Visits Tehran," Rigzone.com (July 8, 2004) http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=14588

[8] "Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006," Reuters, October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com

[9] "Iran Eyes Deal on Oil Bourse, IPE Chairman Visits Tehran," ibid.

[10] "The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill," Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm

[11] Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar," AFP, June 9, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm

[12] "China to diversify foreign exchange reserves," China Business Weekly, May 8, 2004 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm

[13] "Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have terrible consequences," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 11, 2004 http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World

[14] Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm

[15] J.W. Smith, "Destabilizing a Newly-Free Iran," The Institute for Economic Democracy, 2003 http://www.ied.info/books/why/control.html

[16] "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," ibid.

[17] Salama, Sammy and Ruster, Karen,"A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences," Monterry Institute of International Studies, August 12, 2004 (updated September 9, 2004) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

[18] Philips, Peter, "Censored 2004," Project Censored, Seven Stories Press, (2003) http://www.projectcensored.org/

Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on March 16, 2006, 18:06:53
Heh... and something for my own amusement:

Bush: 2003

Quote
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, our friends, and our allies.

Bush: 2006

Quote
The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons

...and again in 2003
Quote
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country - your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

...2006
Quote
The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people....America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

...2003
Quote
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida

... and finally 2006
Quote
The regime in that [Iran] country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end.



... hrm...this entire Iran thing seems vaguely familiar for some unknown reason....

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on March 17, 2006, 00:06:42
Actually the entire project has a fatal flaw which was revealed in a single line at the end of the first post: " Further, the european union would have to cooperate by printing massive amounts of euros to keep up with demand."

Since inflation is a monetary phenomena, the EU will rapidly suffer from self induced inflationary pressures, coupled with a large and inefficient regulatory regime. The United States suffered from this in the period between the end of the Gold standard during the Nixon administration and the Carter administration, with the late 1970s being a period of severe economic hardship ("Stagflation") which required rather drastic means to crush at the beginning of the Reagan administration.

I am sceptical the EU has the will to take the same steps to reverse stagflation, and the fact the bulk of their foreign exchange holdings will be under the control of a hostile state (which could threaten to dump Euros if Islamic Sharia law is not enforced in Islamic enclaves in Europe, for example) will simply make it a lot harder for Europe to either disengage from Iran or even chart their own policy path if they go this route. On the other hand, the reflexively anti-American attitude of the EU elite, plus their short sighted, short term gain mentality will probably have them play right into the hands of the Iranians.

As for Couchcommander's last post; I hope it does sound familier, since the end result is also being played out in Iraq and Afghanistan; newly minted consensual governments, emerging structures for the rule of law and the growth of free market economies. Germany and Japan took decades to rebuild, why should we believe that a job of the same magnitude will take any less time in Southwest Asia?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on March 17, 2006, 16:41:46
As for Couchcommander's last post; I hope it does sound familiar, since the end result is also being played out in Iraq and Afghanistan; newly minted consensual governments, emerging structures for the rule of law and the growth of free market economies.

In determining the particulars of a crime, two elements play significantly, those being actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus), literally, guilty action, and mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea), guilty mind. With this concept, the same action, depending on the intent of the person, can be construed as two completely different things, for example the difference between manslaughter and murder.

Thus, the intent of a state in undertaking a hostile action must be considered, and this intent will distinguish particular actions from others. For example, a state attacking another which had knowingly, and beyond a reasonable doubt harboured individuals and organizations directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of their own citizens, for the reason of mitigating this threat, is a vastly different action than attacking a state with a very thin layer of evidence supporting the former position, and really for the primary reason of preserving ones own hegemony.

Should the United States undertake hostile action against Iran, as they did against Iraq, it is not the facade of reasons we have been exposed to by western media we must consider when determining whether or not their actions were justified or moral, it is their true intent. Whether or not the US is overthrowing a horrible tyrant or oligarchy is irrelevant, it was not their intent in undertaking the action. These articles are meant to shine a light on this intent, and expose that it is far from a compassionate nation building exercise, but a deliberate attempt to ensure their continued dominance. Whether or not you find this reprehensible, is entirely up to you.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: meni0n on March 17, 2006, 17:02:15
So Iran sponsoring terrorism, calling for destruction of other countries ( Israel ) and then trying to acquire nuclear weapons is not reason enough?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on March 17, 2006, 21:42:05
So Iran sponsoring terrorism, calling for destruction of other countries ( Israel ) and then trying to acquire nuclear weapons is not reason enough?

The articles are meant bring to question whether or not any of these are indeed their primary motivation. As I said in the post, whether or not you find the true motivations, whetever you decide them to be, ethical or not is a decision only you can make for yourself.


Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Nemo888 on March 17, 2006, 21:54:03
Didn't we put Saddam in power to prevent the creation of a Shia Arab superpower? Why did we get rid of him, unless the demise of Iran was already planned?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on March 18, 2006, 01:59:00
As the mountains of documents from Iraq are translated, a picture first painted by Bill Clinton in the 1990s and articulated by George W Bush is coming back into view. This is, of course the picture of an aggressive regime determined to use WMD and support for terrorism as the asymmetrical means of breaking out from the Allied imposed restrictions post 1991. (Somehow I don't see the MSM rushing out to report these findings).

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060316&view=1

Quote
Issues & Insights
Declassified Truth

Posted 3/16/2006

The War On Terror: The government is finally getting around to unloading some of Saddam Hussein's secret documents. A look at just a few pages already leads to some blockbuster revelations.

In the early stages of the war that began three years ago, the U.S. captured thousands of documents from Saddam and his spy agency, the Mukhabarat. It's been widely thought the documents could shed light on why Saddam behaved as he did and how much of a threat his evil regime represented.

Yet, until this week, the documents lay molding in boxes in a government warehouse. Now the first batch is out, and though few in number, they're loaded with information.

Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters.

As we've reported several times, a number of former top military officials in Saddam's regime have come forward to admit that, yes, Saddam had WMD, hid them and shipped them out of the country so they couldn't be detected. And he had plans to make more.

Now come more revelations that leave little doubt about Saddam's terrorist intentions. Most intriguing from a document dump Wednesday night is a manual for Saddam's spy service, innocuously listed as CMPC-2003-006430. It makes for interesting reading.

Here, for instance, are the marching orders for Directorate 8, the Mukhabarat's "Technical Affairs" department: "The Eight Directorate is responsible for development of materials needed for covert offensive operations. It contains advanced laboratories for testing and production of weapons, poisons and explosives."

It goes on. Directorate 9, we discover, "is one of the most important directorates in the Mukhabarat. Most of its work is outside Iraq in coordination with other directorates, focusing on operations of sabotage and assassination."

The document also discusses the Mukhabarat's Office 16, set up to train "agents for clandestine operations abroad." The document helpfully adds that "special six-week courses in the use of of terror techniques are provided at a camp in Radwaniyhah."

Got that? Terror techniques.

Follow the link and read the rest.

The United States dealt with a clear and present danger in Ba'athist Iraq, and since political pressure hasn't reduced the danger of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, I think it is safe to say they will deal with the  demonstrable short term danger to the West, rather than worry about fairly nebulous currency exchange dangers. Since the EU has a per capita GDP about 25% below that of the United States (despite having a larger land, resource and population base), a stagnant economy and is facing a demographic crunch in 25 or so years, I don't think smart investors are going to be running to invest in Euros. A true reserve currency needs to offer long term stability, not the prospect of a meltdown waiting due to a demographic crisis when the 30 year bonds come due.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on March 21, 2006, 17:55:47
Should the United States undertake hostile action against Iran, as they did against Iraq, it is not the facade of reasons we have been exposed to by western media we must consider when determining whether or not their actions were justified or moral, it is their true intent. Whether or not the US is overthrowing a horrible tyrant or oligarchy is irrelevant, it was not their intent in undertaking the action. These articles are meant to shine a light on this intent, and expose that it is far from a compassionate nation building exercise, but a deliberate attempt to ensure their continued dominance. Whether or not you find this reprehensible, is entirely up to you.

So it was GW Bush and the western media that have created false video of the Iranian president and all of his threats?  Wow.  Those sneaky war-mongers! Someone should put a live camera on that guy so he can say what he really means instead of being misquoted by the capitalist slave Zionist media. 
What?  Oh?  He was live?
Thennnnnn, he, uh, was being drugged, NO, controlled by HYPNOTIC PREDATOR DRONES!  For God sake, somebody make a tin foil turban for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before it is too late and we end up in a war that only the United States wants!   See, look at this, they are doing it again:

Ahmadinejad stressed that Iran would not give up its nuclear rights.

“Today we announce with pride that the peaceful knowledge and technology are at our disposal in order to be used for different purposes, including electricity generation, and we have not borrowed it from anybody that can take it away from us,” he said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060320-1618-iran-nuclear-president.html

Geez, it's only a veiled threat.  And it's an Arab country.  They are all about the veils, you ethnocentric electricity hater.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on March 21, 2006, 18:20:24
On the threats against other nations front, the US is not innocent on this count either (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/), you ethnocentric electricity hater (I like that one). I hardly think the pissing match gives us reason to invade either of them.







Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on March 22, 2006, 00:37:46
On the threats against other nations front, the US is not innocent on this count either (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/), you ethnocentric electricity hater (I like that one). I hardly think the pissing match gives us reason to invade either of them.

I'm all about the rambling metaphor. 

The difference is that threatening a country to not pursue a nuclear weapons program is pretty okay in my books.  If they are so burning to have nuclear power, then do it the right way and have the International Atomic Energy Agency overseeing it like everyone else. 
Oil, blah blah blah.  I have every belief that at such time as oil does not suit the American interests, there will be a flurry of "discoveries" (actually releasing of buried technology) that render oil obsolete.  It will be a massive shift in the world dynamic, but ultimately it will likely be the United States that spear heads it.  In the mean  time, do we really need another country with nuclear weapon capabilities?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on March 22, 2006, 00:41:54
In the mean  time, do we really need another country with nuclear weapon capabilities?

No, but I haven't seen any proof that they have nuclear weapons capabilities either...do I need to remind everyone of the last time we believed what the US was saying in this regard? Besides.... NK would be a better choice if we are going after countries for this reason.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on March 22, 2006, 01:28:28
No, but I haven't seen any proof that they have nuclear weapons capabilities either...do I need to remind everyone of the last time we believed what the US was saying in this regard? Besides.... NK would be a better choice if we are going after countries for this reason.

I think promising to push Israel back into the sea is a good enough reason to doubt their intent with the technology.  Just because they are not yet nuclear capable doesn't mean we should sit idle and let them.  Korea is a perfect example of how not doing anything allowed a freaky little Elvis wannabe dictator to wield a really big stick. 
Plus, I would rather see our allies going after theocratic zealots that are seeking the technology.  If you go after NK, then you may just get to see one of their nukes get tossed out and used.  At least with Iran a nice 48 hour hail of cruise missiles would sort out who is bluffing who. 
I also consider that these leaders in the middle east seem to have a real need to hear their own voices on television and need to sound tough to their people.  I remember one Iraqi dictator who used to talk pretty tough until he was playing sewer rat.  One would think that experience would let them know what is a good bluff and what is not.  If the US calls Iran's bluff, Iran is going to be in a bad way.  I think Iran is counting on the US military being stretched thin right now and figures it can pull some "shout at the bully from half a block away" and then at the last second say "okay, never mind.  Send in the inspectors".  I think the days of cat and mouse semi compliance with UN rules is coming to an end.  Unfortunately, there is only one country that seems intent on holding some of these bumblehumps to an accounting. 
And it ain't France.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on March 27, 2006, 13:03:08
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1176995,00.html

Charles Krauthammer on the threat of hyperproliferation.
The Iranians will leave us with just two choices - do nothing or strike them hard. The article shows what the world could be like in the event we do nothing.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on March 28, 2006, 06:03:05
From the linked article from Tomahawk:

It is not just that its President says crazy things about the Holocaust. It is that he is a fervent believer in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi'ism's version of the Messiah. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away. He reportedly told an associate that on the podium of the General Assembly last September, he felt a halo around him and for "those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink ... as if a hand was holding them there and it opened their eyes to receive" his message. He believes that the Islamic revolution's raison d'être is to prepare the way for the messianic redemption, which in his eschatology is preceded by worldwide upheaval and chaos. How better to light the fuse for eternal bliss than with a nuclear flame?

Good enough for me.  Where's the LOD?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on March 29, 2006, 22:49:41
Always amusing.

I too, would agree, that world leaders who control WMD thinking about the apocalyspe is a bad thing. Unforunately, Ahmadinejad isn't the only one (http://www.unknownnews.net/030812vanimpe.html). In fact this other guy (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y) claims to be getting his orders directly from the big man.... scary IMO.

Quote
According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

From the last article.

My point would be, I suppose, that I support removing any tyrannical or insane leader... for the reason of removing a tyrannical or insane leader (and of course we must decide whether this will actually bring about any more stability or peace). Once again, however, it seems to me that this is far from the US's true intentions.

And regardless, as I said before, if we are going after people for this reason, I can think of a number of better targets than Iran.

And once again, it cannot be proven that they have or are actively (currently) pursuing nuclear weapons. Past experience dictates that we cannot trust what the US is saying in this regard, so I will wait until an independant agency confirms it (*waits for the same "Well you can wait, but when you get nuked you'll be sorry" response I got re: Iraq*)  I'm reminded of the saying "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on March 30, 2006, 02:20:04
Seriously, JACK VAN IMPE?!?! 
Couchcommander, you are not so couch bound that you believe everything you read on the internet, are you?  I have some real problems with taking third hand accounts of what someone "thinks" George Bush is saying.  GWB has never made any bones about being a Christian, so if he referred to having "prayed to make a right decision" that is not the same as "God came to my security briefing and gave me a flaming sword to carve up Mesopotamia".  If the man didn't say it on camera, or in print, take it with a grain of salt.  Bush hating is very fashionable. 
Besides, no one is talking regime change in Iran (Yet).  They just need to have their nuclear program shut down before it is too late.  It's not like they are saying "we only want a few more kilowatts, what is the harm".  They are making definite threats to Israel, and anyone else who provokes their displeasure. 
Ultimatum, deadline, last chance, Tomahawk storm.  Short and sweet.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on March 30, 2006, 03:22:37
I have some real problems with taking third hand accounts of what someone "thinks" George Bush Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is saying. 

lol, my point was (there really needs to be a sarcasm font or something) exactly that. I don't believe either, and I would advise viewing what the western media spouts out with the same skepticism that you have towards a reputable Israeli newspaper.

And as I have said, as far as can be reasonably assumed at this point, their only nuclear program is peaceful.

However... as long as we are not talking about regime change (ie large scale operation... several hundred thousand civilians dead)... then ok, I'm definitely in for the discussion.

I actually have nothing against targetted surgical strikes, or a policy of containment. In fact I think i've advocated it before.

 For me, the fact that they are being so aggressive in their posture would in fact warrant the latter. And if with further investigation it can be demonstrated that there is a will, even if they are not actively pursuing it, for a nuclear device, I would indeed have a hard time arguing against strikes against enrichment facilities.

However, care should be taken as this is likely to further inflame and generate radical Islamic movements (as it seems that many Muslims identify very strongly with their religion, beyond even national boundaries, (a position I have come to accept after some...livey debate), and further that we risk pushing people in their arms who previously didn't due to the fact we have simply killed their loved ones, ruined their livelihood, etc.) ... in the end we may end up shooting ourselves in the foot. This should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not it's worth it. 



Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on March 30, 2006, 12:57:22
The amount of evidence that Iran has been promoting attacks against Western interests is fairly long and detailed, dating back to the American Embassy takeover in 1979, the "tanker war" in the 1980s to their quite open support of vicious terrorist movements like Hezbollah and Hamas to the present.

Like Iraq under the Ba'athist regime, past actions are a very good indicator of what to expect, so if they are making open threats to acquire and use nuclear weapons, then it would be very short sighted NOT to take them at their word. As for "evidence" that Iran is persuing "peaceful" nuclear power; the fact that the Iranian people were unaware of the nuclear program for many years would seem to indicate there was something less than above board about it.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on March 31, 2006, 16:24:09
lol, my point was (there really needs to be a sarcasm font or something) exactly that. I don't believe either, and I would advise viewing what the western media spouts out with the same skepticism that you have towards a reputable Israeli newspaper.

I whine about a [sarcasm] icon all the time ;)
How can we believe any media from any source completely?  They are all so easy to manipulate and all seem to have some sort of agenda.  I think one should keep an open mind, view multiple information sources and also consider the countries past actions. 

And as I have said, as far as can be reasonably assumed at this point, their only nuclear program is peaceful.

I don't agree.  From their actions and words, we should not assume anything in that country these days is peaceful.  If they really are looking for another power source, they should have no problem allowing UN inspectors to monitor their activities.  It is their actions and words that make the monitoring necessary, so if they want to cry about "it's our country, it's not your business" then the shouldn't have been so quick to go back to war-threat Israel bashing. 

However... as long as we are not talking about regime change (ie large scale operation... several hundred thousand civilians dead)... then ok, I'm definitely in for the discussion.
I actually have nothing against targetted surgical strikes, or a policy of containment. In fact I think i've advocated it before.
 For me, the fact that they are being so aggressive in their posture would in fact warrant the latter. And if with further investigation it can be demonstrated that there is a will, even if they are not actively pursuing it, for a nuclear device, I would indeed have a hard time arguing against strikes against enrichment facilities

Oh, cripes, forget about regime change.  I can't even imagine what a drawn out cluster hump that would be.  I seem to recall that was one of the reasons that Iraq was an attractive target, because of the relatively low level of religious fervor.  I realize it looks a lot like there is religious battles going on, but in reality the insurgency is just using religion as a herald, and the real problem is politics, coupled with a lot of non-native button pushing on the part of Al Qaeda.  Kind of like Norther Ireland.  Catholic vs. Protestant really doesn't have much to do with what was going on.  More like Irish poor underclass (catholic) vs rich, small British ruling class (Prod). 
 
However, care should be taken as this is likely to further inflame and generate radical Islamic movements (as it seems that many Muslims identify very strongly with their religion, beyond even national boundaries, (a position I have come to accept after some...livey debate), and further that we risk pushing people in their arms who previously didn't due to the fact we have simply killed their loved ones, ruined their livelihood, etc.) ... in the end we may end up shooting ourselves in the foot. This should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not it's worth it. 

Come on!  That concession-ish talk is what led to 9-11.  For years the radical Islamic threat had been identified, but it was always "well, if you attack them, you just make them martyrs and make it worse".  We are past the "placate and ignore" phase.  This is a shooting war, and the shitrats need to be hunted down and exterminated.  It is us or them, and there will be no happy medium.  Here is some food for thought.
This is an excerpt from the introduction portion of an actual Al Qaeda training manual:

In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate
PRESENTATION
To those champions who avowed the truth day and night ...
... And wrote with their blood and sufferings these phrases
...
-*- The confrontation that we are calling for with the
apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates ..., Platonic
ideals ..., nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the
dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and
destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.
*** ...
Islamic governments have never and will never be established
through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are
established as they [always] have been
by pen and gun
by word and bullet
by tongue and teeth


I don't see these guys sitting down in a nice board room in the Hague and chit chatting about religious freedoms.  They are dedicated to the eradication of our society.  They see it as their absolute duty to Allah to wipe all traces of the western world from existence, or die trying. 

Me, I'm all for helping them out with the "or die trying" part.   :akimbo:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: xander on April 08, 2006, 19:21:35
Great article by Seymour Hersh, the same journalist that broke the Abu Graib scandal. The article talks about US military options against Iran including tactical nukes and how a war with Iran may play out. I'm not able to post the article because it is over the maximum characters allowed so here is the link to the New Yorker article.
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact)

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 08, 2006, 19:26:18
Hersh is a communist and very anti-military.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on April 08, 2006, 19:50:07
Quote
Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

So what, it's no mystery that SF teams are conducting SR and working with the locals in Iran (no different than the early stages of Afghanistan and the NA). The tactical nukes seems like a bit of a stretch, even for comrade Hersh ;)   
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on April 08, 2006, 23:01:24
I don't think anyone should be surprised that the US is scouting targets.

Re: the use of tactical nukes. The US had been exploring and developing limited nuclear options all through the Cold War. They seem to believe that nuclear weapons can be used to acheive certain objectives, within the context of a conventional war, without necessarily leading to an escalation.

In fact the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, circa 2005 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf) specifically states that nuclear weapons will be considered when there is a threat of an enemy using a WMD, to attack enemy WMD in hardened bunkers, to stop WMD proliferation to proxies, and just plain old to "demonstrate US intent or capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy use of WMD".....scary, especially when you realize this is all pre-emptive. For us lefties this caused quite a stir...;)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on April 09, 2006, 01:44:32

Re: the use of tactical nukes. The US had been exploring and developing limited nuclear options all through the Cold War. They seem to believe that nuclear weapons can be used to acheive certain objectives, within the context of a conventional war, without necessarily leading to an escalation.

Agreed.

Yet, I still don't think they'll be used in Iran (it would destabilize the ME and further polarize the various sects).

Quote
For us lefties this caused quite a stir...;)

LOL.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 09, 2006, 02:25:20
IMO I don't see nukes happening.  If there was one way to polarize the planet against the US, nukes would be it.  I have to believe with bunker buster technology, and other smart weapons, they could get the job done there (hopefully it won't come to that) with conventional ordinance. 
Besides, they are going to need all of those warheads to turn India into a glass parking lot when the Red Wave that we are all paying to build starts to flow out of China.  But I will leave it to ChCdr or one of the other better edumacated members to shoot down or support that wild hare opinion. ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on April 09, 2006, 02:33:07
I agree that nuking Iran isn't likely, but then again I thought that the US wouldn't pull out of the ABM treaty as well (too destabilizing)... I just wouldn't rule it out IMO.

*edited.... so that it actually made sense, i suppose... yup definately edumacation*
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Otto Fest on April 09, 2006, 17:05:40
Iran may be the most complex geo-political problem since NATO was formed.  The US knows this and has made overtures towards India, which is of course the world's largest democracy.  Pakistan and China complicate the issue, but I believe concerns about China are quite over-rated.  The chinese must worry about 10 million men who will never find wives due to the (now obvious) one child policy.  Once China has a significant middle class democracy will hopefully follow.

Iran's young population (half under twenty five years old), religious government and military improvements do not bode well.  They have recently released news that they've developed a torpedo based on Soviet designs that can travel at 200 knots.  It's powered by a rocket motor and uses 'super cavitation' technology to minimize resistance through the water.  Iranian subs have been routinely patrolling as far as the South African coast and interdiction of oil tankers of the straits of Hormuz would be disasterous for the western economies.

I think the US will draw a very public line in the sand that is acceptable to the public and even world opinion, and then goad Iran to cross it.  The theocrats in Tehran will have to be careful as any misstep on their part could lead to massive international opposition to them.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: AOG101 on April 09, 2006, 17:28:35

I think the US will draw a very public line in the sand that is acceptable to the public and even world opinion, and then goad Iran to cross it.  The theocrats in Tehran will have to be careful as any misstep on their part could lead to massive international opposition to them.
I agree that the us will have to draw a line ,I think more so they will have to draw a line that is acceptable to the rest of the world and the Israeli's.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on April 09, 2006, 19:38:35
I agree that the us will have to draw a line ,I think more so they will have to draw a line that is acceptable to the rest of the world and the Israeli's.

The ROW also needs to get their butts and act before it's too late.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Otto Fest on April 11, 2006, 00:47:50
OK, out on a limb... but I believe the USA believes better earlier than later.  This balance of power probably gives the US more latitude, and they have definitly learned a lesson from the 'wonder bra'... gotta have some fun here, ask and I'll tell...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on April 11, 2006, 00:57:02
Right, I'll bite... what do you mean by the US's "wonder bra"... other than their getting to be middle aged and needing "more support" to feel good about themselves in public?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 11, 2006, 00:57:54
OK, out on a limb... but I believe the USA believes better earlier than later.  This balance of power probably gives the US more latitude, and they have definitly learned a lesson from the 'wonder bra'... gotta have some fun here, ask and I'll tell...

I'll bite too.  WTH are you talking about?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Otto Fest on April 11, 2006, 01:36:19
OK, both the NVA vs US and Afghan vs USSR recieved sp from external allies.  Tthis is where I get "no visible means of support".  They all received sp, but not acknowledge it as it would made it direct conflict with the other super power.  In Iraq etc right now there is no external sp..... The ultimate Wonderbra omercial should be shot in Havana.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on April 11, 2006, 01:51:03
Face it nukes or conventional, one day on the news you'll hear that their reactor(s) will be destroyed by either the US or Israel. in my opinion, this is certain.

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Otto Fest on April 11, 2006, 02:07:19
Iraq is very difficult as they have spread scientific  sites all over the country.. and it is a Big country with 60,000,000 people, as many as Nazi Germany....

But Iraq has no external means of sp..., all its own. The US has done an incredible job in isolatiing Iran.  Iran is now a festering problem that most countries would like to see lanced.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: AOG101 on April 11, 2006, 02:34:11
I think a lot is going to have to do with the russian's picking up on the re-construction at the Bushehr reactor site,that germany vacated after the revolution in  Iran,If the US wants to find a diplomatic solution to this problem their going to have to form closer ties with russia over this thing.Russia is bidding to supply them with the fuel for the reactor and disposing of the spent fuel themselves,If all goes has planned,great, if not this could be the ultimate ' Genie in a bottle' for all of us.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 11, 2006, 11:53:23
Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons negotiations are just a stalling tactic until they have workable nuclear weapons. It took South Africa only 10 years time and $250m to produce 7 weapons capable of being employed by their Bucaneer's. Their method was the gun type uranium model. Iraq also was using that method to produce a nuclear weapon. It takes a metric ton for a Scud warhead and 500 pounds for an advanced Scud [longer range]. The Iranian's have both. Our choice will be either to do nothing and see Iran gain nuclear weapons or try to take out their ability to make nuclear weapons. For Israel its really no choice at all - for their very survival they must act.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/technical2.asp?print=true
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 11, 2006, 16:02:33
Agreed, Tomahawk
Now, stand by for the shrieking and wailing about Bush loving war and being part of a Zionist doctrine ::)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 11, 2006, 16:48:23
A useful counter-weight to the New Yorker and Washington Post stories by William Arkin (no fan of the Bush administration) of the Washington Post--who has uncovered a lot of relevant facts.
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/04/goldilocks_and_.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 11, 2006, 22:40:39
More facts from William Arkin:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/04/wild_speculatio.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 11, 2006, 23:19:55
The Iranian's announced that they have enriched uranium.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191334,00.html
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Armymatters on April 11, 2006, 23:40:55
My personal opinions on Iran:

To me, the real heads of state (not the nutbag Iranian President) sincerly do not believe that they want nuclear weapons. The IAEA in a February 2006 report reported that all declared nuclear materials in Iran are accounted for by the IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-15.pdf) indicating to the IAEA that there is no diversion of such nuclear materials towards a weapons program, but the IAEA cautions that there may be undeclared nuclear materials and activity in Iran. They came to this conclusion due to issues in the past about the scope nuclear programme, and lack of information on the enrichment, and the supposed weapons designs the Iranians got.

Taking out the Iranian nuclear facilites will be a tough task. Most of these facilites are buried deep underground, and are heavily dispersed throughout the country. Taking them out using air strikes will not gurantee total destruction and shutdown of all of the facilities. This is not Iraq and the Osirak reactor, as Iraq back in the 1980's had only one reactor and research facility. Iran has many reactors and research facilities. The only way to permenantly shut them down in Iran is to do a ground assault, but that would be iffy in prospects, as the Iranian military is well trained, well armed, well motivated, and very large, compared to the paper tiger that Iraq was. Also, there is a very real and big chance that such an invasion would ignite a Islamic Holy War against the West, a prospect that would be very alarming for the security of Western nations.

Iran does have the right to a civilian nuclear power programme under the NPT. Proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world is of great concern for the security of all nations on this planet, and as such, proliferation of nuclear weapons technology should be curtailed and prevented.

Edit: to summarize, yes, I think that the Iranian nuclear programme is of concern regarding its possible size and its intentions and goals, but one must see the bigger picture, and think about the security of all of the neighbours of Iran and of the rest of the world if attempts are made to shut down the program by force.

Edit 2: I am also asking the following questions:
1. What is the cost of shutting down Iran's nuclear program by force in terms of lives and the security of other nations? Is it worth it to attack Iran to shut down the nuclear program, compared to the increased security risks that may be encountered due to the fallout of such an attack?
2. Can we trust the Iranians with the program? So far, cooperation with the IAEA has been above that the IAEA requires. Can we trust them with being more forthcomming about the scope of their program?
3. What are the risks to other nations in the region? Will it destabilize other governments?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: AOG101 on April 12, 2006, 00:00:10
The Iranian's announced that they have enriched uranium.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191334,00.html
well aside from people dancing with vials of enriched uranium,I read this has better news than previous? Debatable?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bert on April 12, 2006, 00:14:11
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Another interesting article from Stratfor.


Iran: Crossing the Redline?
www.stratfor.com

Summary

Iranian officials are trumpeting a major advance in their country's nuclear program. Here is what it means -- and does not mean.

Analysis

Former Iranian President and Chairman of the Expediency Council Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani announced April 11 that Iran has successfully completed an enrichment cascade using 164 gas centrifuges, Kuwaiti state news agency KUNA announced. Such a cascade would empower Iran to produce a richer fissile blend of uranium for use in nuclear power plant fuel or perhaps a nuclear weapon.

Technically, the announcement means that Iran has established its ability to enrich uranium in something other than very small amounts. The Iranians are, however, not yet at the point that they can make weapons or fabricate nuclear fuel to run a reactor. A weapons program will require several of these cascades, and a power program requires dozens of them. Establishing enrichment cascades on that scale is still -- at bare minimum -- several months off. And even once that is achieved, enriched uranium would need to be fabricated into fuel for a reactor, or go through a weaponization process if it is to have military value. Neither process is simple, quick or cheap.

Politically, however, this step has immediate implications. In Europe, enrichment of any kind, much less on an industrial scale as the Iranians are clearly aiming for, is a redline. Once the Iranians move past enrichment, information on their nuclear weapons program can be garnered only through intensive intelligence efforts. Iran's announcement means that European states that see a limited reason to participate in such intelligence efforts no longer feel they have any leverage in negotiations. Europe will now simply put its relatively disinterested diplomatic efforts behind the United States and let Washington run the show. It is not carte blanche -- the Europeans still do not want military action -- but it is close.

For Israel, the issue is more complex. As noted above, enrichment does not automatically equate to weaponization. Israel, unlike Europe, has a deep and abiding interest in directing intelligence efforts against Tehran. Thus, Israel's picture of the Iranian nuclear program is more complete than Europe's. As one would expect, this deeper awareness and interest translates into a different redline, likely somewhere in the weaponization process. The world can be certain that Iran has not yet stepped over Israel's redline; after all, Tehran is still a city, not a crater.

But ultimately the Iranian announcement is about the United States. Iran and Washington are currently -- for the first time in a generation -- engaged in direct talks, officially about all topics Iraqi. This revelation, like the U.S. leaks over the weekend that nuclear strike options against Iran had been drawn up, are all part of the ebb and flow of those negotiations.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 12, 2006, 01:13:04
2. Can we trust the Iranians with the program? So far, cooperation with the IAEA has been above that the IAEA requires. Can we trust them with being more forthcoming about the scope of their program?

Coupled with:

Technically, the announcement means that Iran has established its ability to enrich uranium in something other than very small amounts. The Iranians are, however, not yet at the point that they can make weapons or fabricate nuclear fuel to run a reactor. A weapons program will require several of these cascades, and a power program requires dozens of them. Establishing enrichment cascades on that scale is still -- at bare minimum -- several months off. And even once that is achieved, enriched uranium would need to be fabricated into fuel for a reactor, or go through a weaponization process if it is to have military value. Neither process is simple, quick or cheap.

So it is not too hard to figure out that if you provide the illusion with cooperating with inspectors, you can develop your technology and fissile materials in plain view.  If they need a large amount of enriched uranium for a plant, then in the process of acting like they were building a plant not end up with a considerable amount of enriched uranium for weapons?  I'd be pretty uptight if I had to live in Israel. 
The planet better get it's collective crap together and make a decision on these guys, or no good will come of this.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Armymatters on April 12, 2006, 04:32:19
We also have to be careful how we deal with Iran, otherwise, we could ignite a Islamic Holy War against the West, and that would be even uglier. Right now, provide some incentives for Iran to be more forthcomming about the program and encourage Iran to be more open is all we can do.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on April 12, 2006, 04:58:48
What effect would Iran cutting off oil supplies have on our economies? Can OPEC keep up with demand? Would they even be willing to keep up with demand, whether it be to keep the prices high for their own benefit, or because they feel that the US has done something inappropriate?

.... I don't think we can afford that senario. We need to tread lightly, and before doing anything with Iran make sure we don't kick our own balls in the process.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Love793 on April 12, 2006, 08:48:13
Well, as for the Iran cutting off oil, the Price as of 0730 this morning in Windsor is $1.05 a litre.  And that is just with the rumours of sabre rattling.

The rest of it, sounds very similiar to the N Korean issue that came up prior to Bush's exploration of Iraq for NBC Capability.  I do have agree that eventually sometime on CNN, we're going to hear about either an American or Isreali airstrike on one or more reactor/research facility (and my money is on the Isrealis).
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on April 12, 2006, 09:25:27
You folks know what any war with Iran would mean right? We'll be going along with them I bet. The American's that is...

They are stretched pretty thin and thier military I imagine is pretty stressed out. They will pressure us like C-R-A-Z-Y to make a large scale deployment and show of force along with them, and I believe if we turned our backs on them this time, it really wouldn't be good for our relations, like horrible really. Probably ramifications later on after thier done with that war. Financial levvies and burdens and all kinds of trade wars.

Think about it, they'll try to form another coalition of the willing so to speak but they'll do it themselves if they have to. But they'll be pissed about it.

You guys ready to put on desert CADPAT?

-OR- I'd like to be proven completely wrong (I really would), but it is MY opinion that we'll have to go over there with them this time, no out of it!
 ???
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: George Wallace on April 12, 2006, 09:31:26
Interesting that the only 'country' of the three that lay claim to be the 'Home of Islam' and so far that is not in a 'state of war' is Iran.  Others that would like to lay claim to that 'Right' are Afhanistan and Sudan and of course we have Iraq on the fringes.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Landmine Detector on April 12, 2006, 13:59:18
"You folks know what any war with Iran would mean right? We'll be going along with them I bet. The American's that is...

They are stretched pretty thin and thier military I imagine is pretty stressed out. They will pressure us like C-R-A-Z-Y to make a large scale deployment and show of force along with them, and I believe if we turned our backs on them this time, it really wouldn't be good for our relations, like horrible really. Probably ramifications later on after thier done with that war. Financial levvies and burdens and all kinds of trade wars.

Think about it, they'll try to form another coalition of the willing so to speak but they'll do it themselves if they have to. But they'll be pissed about it.

You guys ready to put on desert CADPAT?

-OR- I'd like to be proven completely wrong (I really would), but it is MY opinion that we'll have to go over there with them this time, no out of it!"
 

I think you're right.  If the Americans launched a ground offensive we would be with them.  The political pressure would be so great that those europeans would probably be there too.  However, I don't think that the US or NATO can realy afford to push an occupation of Iran considering that their militaries are tied up in Iraq, and Afghanistan. 

I think that inorder to deal with the Irainian government we need to avoid any talk of "regime change."  Don't get me wrong, there are bad people running that country, but as soon as the West says that they will essentialy "kill off" the old regime negotiations are impossible.  Even after a (hopfuly) quick war, if the regime is given the option to shape up they will be less inclined to fight to the death and will cave easeier.  The last thing the West needs is to be bogged down fighting gurrilla wars everywhere in the mid east.  This also means that the decapitation strikes against Hussain early in the Iraq war couldnt be repeated.  Hard to negotiate with someone after you have tried to kill him personaly.

As far as military options go, if there was only a convetional air strike against military targets al la "shock and awe" the west could try and make the case that we are punishing Iran, but dont want to own it.  This is harder to do if the west lands an invasion force.  At issue:  how can you confirm that you have taken out all nuke development unless you land ground troops?

Also, how would a strike against Iran effect the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: GAP on April 12, 2006, 14:43:22
It is Iran that has drawn the line and is daring anyone to cross it. It's itching to start a fight, whether diplomatic or otherwise, to support it's place in Middle East politics. It's about prospective, and Iran wants to be high on the visibility list.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Navy_Blue on April 12, 2006, 17:58:42
We do realize that unlike previous opponents of our friends to the south, Iran is much better equipped and trained than other foes.  Maybe not as advanced but they would be the most capable fighting force the US would face since Korea, maybe even WWII.  Iraq was a push over and Afghanistan was nothing.   Iran has a few toys and even a few nasty tactical options.  We would see huge casualties in the first 24 hours ships, plains and men. 

The US likes to bomb people first but the second one missile hits a target all shipping will stop because they will sink anything trying to get through the straights....completely ignore the ones with guns and hit tankers....World begins the worst energy crisis since the 70's.  The leaders of the world know this, its really a tight spot and Iran just may have us by the balls. 

Also if/when they get Nukes does it not come down to M.A.D. again.  I know they are crazy but are they crazy enough to think if they use a nuke they wont get 10 fold in return???

 :cdn:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on April 12, 2006, 19:33:30
Also if/when they get Nukes does it not come down to M.A.D. again.  I know they are crazy but are they crazy enough to think if they use a nuke they wont get 10 fold in return???

Well it all comes down to how they view nuclear weapons. If they think that they can be used as an instrument of policy, ie to acheive objectives and eventually victory, then they just might. As I mentioned, US doctrine does support the concept of a limited exchange, and there is nothing stopping Iran from having a similar doctrine. If they feel that they can acheive a high enough return with their capability that outweighs the potential effects of a similar US strike, they could be tempted.

However, if they view the use of nuclear weapons simply in terms if deterrance, ie if they believe that the use of a nuclear device would trigger a series of events leading in an all out exchange, then they would be very unlikely to use them. We cannot assume that their view is the second, but nor should we automatically assume it is the first. I am no position to even speculate which one it is, but I can say that both doctrines have been explored by most nuclear capable nations, though with different conclusions.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Cliff on April 12, 2006, 20:36:47
Iraq was a push over and Afghanistan was nothing.   Iran has a few toys and even a few nasty tactical options.  We would see huge casualties in the first 24 hours ships, plains and men. 

I don't think Iraq was a push over or Afghanistan was nothing. Anytime you operate in a foreign territory = it's a big deal.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 3rd Horseman on April 12, 2006, 22:21:17
Nuclear option....that is so absurd sounds like a little reporter over exaggeration, I never heard the US ever say this.

  Those who have any minor knowledge of targeting would understand that you don't need to use a nuc even one as small as a tactical one on a nuc plant or enrichment facility, just a hard target deep penetrating of the 10,000 lb range. Dropped from high alt by stealth they would not even know what hit them just that a massive explosion happened, it could even look like an accident!

  As for Iran as a foe that would be able to stand up to a fight...Sadam hammered them with 10 times less forces. They would roll over easily i my opinion....the aftermath and insurgent activity would be tough though.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on April 13, 2006, 00:31:13
Much of what is being reported is nonsense. Destroying the nuclear capabilities of Iran through kinetic action would be the very last step, since it would not resolve the underlying problem, which is the regime and their quest for regional hegemony.

US policy is now underpinned by the "Purple Finger" plan (i.e. exporting the growth of consensual democratic regimes in the region), with the application of hard power to uproot the autocrats and shield the new democracies. Should military action be deemed necessary against Iran, I would expect some form of a "head shot" directed at the centers of Iranian political power and the institutions (like the Revolutionary Guard) which uphold it, with only a very limited role for ground forces. The various factions inside Iran would suddenly find the Theocracy crippled, but, the communications and transportation infrastructure will probably be knocked out as well. The turmoil in Iran would be somewhat self contained as various groups struggled for power and took revenge on the Theocratic regime and the Revolutionary guardsmen, rather than being turned outwards against Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a BTW, the centrifuge "cascade" used to enrich uranium could be crippled by something as simple as messing with the power supplies in the actual plant. the centrifuge is spinning at several thousand RPM, so anything which would unbalance the thing will seriously damage the bearings etc.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on April 13, 2006, 09:15:53
Much of what is being reported is nonsense. Destroying the nuclear capabilities of Iran through kinetic action would be the very last step, since it would not resolve the underlying problem, which is the regime and their quest for regional hegemony.

US policy is now underpinned by the "Purple Finger" plan (i.e. exporting the growth of consensual democratic regimes in the region), with the application of hard power to uproot the autocrats and shield the new democracies. Should military action be deemed necessary against Iran, I would expect some form of a "head shot" directed at the centers of Iranian political power and the institutions (like the Revolutionary Guard) which uphold it, with only a very limited role for ground forces. The various factions inside Iran would suddenly find the Theocracy crippled, but, the communications and transportation infrastructure will probably be knocked out as well. The turmoil in Iran would be somewhat self contained as various groups struggled for power and took revenge on the Theocratic regime and the Revolutionary guardsmen, rather than being turned outwards against Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a BTW, the centrifuge "cascade" used to enrich uranium could be crippled by something as simple as messing with the power supplies in the actual plant. the centrifuge is spinning at several thousand RPM, so anything which would unbalance the thing will seriously damage the bearings etc.

Something like a cruise missile maybe?  :)

At this point in time I don't think we should do anything in a military way about them. Only diplomatic, let them start beating thier chests and screaming in monkey to show off the fact they are "strong and dangerous". So did North Korea. Thank god we didn't go to war with them yet either...

I think the media prods people on by shooting thier big mouth's off and just posting things on TV like, "US considers military strikes against Iran" and makes the public automatically think another war not only is being thought of, but that it's imminent. If George Bush started another war now, the USA population I think would lynch-mob the White House and kick his ***... There are some very, VERY unhappy people in the USA with him to say the least!

Hopefully we don't get sucked into the "suck" until about 2010 when we have a stronger military.... So long as we don't get torn apart again by politics and leadership switching hands too many times by then!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: GAP on April 13, 2006, 09:25:31
Quote
I would expect some form of a "head shot" directed at the centers of Iranian political power and the institutions (like the Revolutionary Guard)
That's a scenario I can't visualize at all..As much noise as is being made, this country is a Theocracy, and I can't see you taking out the mullahs or changing their mind. The formal government is simply a tool of the Shite mullahs and we should not forget it. They have been so successful, simply because for the most part the general populace has 'been made' to believe what the Mullahs spout, irregardless of whether it makes sense or not to us.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: George Wallace on April 13, 2006, 09:31:17
....... The formal government is simply a tool of the Shite mullahs and we should not forget it. They have been so successful, simply because for the most part the general populace has 'been made' to believe what the Mullahs spout, irregardless of whether it makes sense or not to us.

I wouldn't 100% agree with you there.  There still is a lot of dissent in Iran, but it is very subdued by the faction in power.  If they did gain more popular support amongst the people, I could see them defeating the Mullahs in an election.  That being if there was ever a fair election to be held.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: AOG101 on April 13, 2006, 09:34:58
so question,With the ayatollah khamenei having declared a fatwa against nuclear weapons,can anyone forsee a religious  coup coming out of thic country in the near future
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: GAP on April 13, 2006, 09:50:33
Already has been a religious coup...The different factions of the government are representing different factions of the Theocracy. The generation that experienced life under the Shaw and all it's freedoms, has for the most part been sidelined and is pretty ineffectual. Not that there's not dissent, but life is pretty brutal to those that do not tow the line, at least publicly.
Can they export it...see "Southern Iraq"
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Marauder on April 13, 2006, 18:18:09
You know, if JSOC were to just liquidate all those pointy headed nuclear scientists who speak Farsi, and make an example of any free agents *coughrussianschinesekoreanscough* who went to Iran to try and rebuild that capability...

Oh, the glee  I would feel to see the wacky lefty academics here shite the bed over that...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Love793 on April 13, 2006, 18:50:21
What about the reactor technology we sell everyone?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Armymatters on April 13, 2006, 18:57:15
What about the reactor technology we sell everyone?

The CANDU reactor technology? It requires no enrichment, but it is easy to get plutonium from this reactor design as you do not need to enrich the uranium, and it can be reloaded without having to turn off the reactor.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on April 13, 2006, 19:20:36
That's how India got the bomb, if I remember correctly. Not CANDU, but another Canadian heavy water reactor.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Armymatters on April 13, 2006, 19:28:04
That's how India got the bomb, if I remember correctly. Not CANDU, but another Canadian heavy water reactor.

It was based off the NRX design and was donated by us in 1960 (curiously, NRX suffered a partial meltdown in 1952). The Americans supplied the heavy water needed to operate the reactor. When the Indians blew up their first bomb, it prompted a major outcry here, and we cut off any future exchange of nuclear materials and technology with India.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Navy_Blue on April 13, 2006, 21:57:32
My point about Afghanistan and Iraq being push overs stands.  The conventional forces folded within days if not hours after air strikes and assaults began.  What we are fighting now is a gorilla war (completely different).  I challenge anyone to find few if any instances where conventional forces (plains, tanks, ships and 1000's of infantry) fought and won against a gorilla force.   Iran would turn into this type of conflict very soon after any attack.

The people leading the insurgency in both Iraq and Afghanistan know that they just have to hold out a few years and the governments will change and promises will be made to pull out of these places.  I don't agree with it but it will happen.  Our western society has no stomach for casualties.  We don't see past four years and we can't possibly see the benefits of having a middle east where everyone plays nice.

Anytime the British had problems involving insurgents in the past they sent in the SAS won harts and minds of the locals and demoralized the opposition.  If the British would have carpet bombed some of there quite conflicts and sent in troops and killed civi's it would have turned out much differently.   The Brits aren't perfect though...they never really did crush the IRA and they are now stuck in a bind with the Yanks. The US and Russians always figured overwhelming force would break there opponents.  They had to pull out of both Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Our only real alternative just may be to let them grow up on there own build there nukes and let them know that no one on this planet will stand by and let them use them.  All these little countries who have nukes should get an understanding that they will be wiped from the Earth if they use them.  The Russians, the Chinese, France, the UK and the Yanks (all the big kids with nukes) should all agree too this kind of enforcing an understanding of M.A.D. on the others.

I'll leave it at that for now...

 :threat:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 13, 2006, 23:13:56
Nobody ever wants a gorilla war.  All that poop and banana peels  ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 14, 2006, 20:07:07
Israel will be 'annihilated,' says Iran's president

So of course, more posturing and more threats to Israel.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must have called FTD and ordered a bouquet of daisy cutters.  At least he is making the case to have him taken out pretty clear to the UN for us. 

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc/s/14042006/3/world-israel-annihilated-says-iran-s-president.html
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: muskrat89 on April 15, 2006, 11:22:07
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/14/D8GVSUC0H.html

 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran

The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"

The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."

"The existence of this (Israeli) regime is a permanent threat" to the Middle East, he added. "Its existence has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."

The three-day conference on Palestine is being attended by officials of Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian territories.

Iran has previously said it will give money to the Palestinian Authority to make up for the withdrawal of donations by Western nations who object to Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel and renounce violence. But no figure has been published.

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either fueling nuclear reactors or making nuclear weapons.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.

The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to cease enrichment. But Iran has rejected the demand.

The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, was quoted Wednesday as saying Iran could develop a nuclear bomb "within three years, by the end of the decade."
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: muskrat89 on April 15, 2006, 11:23:17
and more....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/15/060415084241.xdv0o3w3.html

Iran issues stark military warning to United States
Apr 15 4:42 AM US/Eastern
   

Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."

Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the sensitive work to be halted by April 28.

The Islamic regime says it only wants to generate atomic energy, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead -- something the United States is convinced that "axis of evil" member Iran wants to acquire.

At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati simply branded the US as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions.

And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance."

"She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action.

"We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile.

On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations."

"There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand. In Tehran he said that after three years of investigations Iran's activities were "still hazy and not very clear."

Although the United States has been prodding the council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China.

Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss the crisis.

In seeking to deter international action, Iran has been playing up its oil wealth, its military might in strategic Gulf waters and its influence across the region -- such as in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

At the Tehran conference, Iran continued to thumb its nose at the United States and Israel.

"The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat," Ahmadinejad told the gathering of regime officials, visiting Palestinian militant leaders and foreign sympathizers.

"Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated," said Ahmadinejad, whose regime does not recognise Israel and who drew international condemnation last year when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Unfazed by his critics, the hardliner went on to repeat his controversial stance on the Holocaust.

"If there is serious doubt over the Holocaust, there is no doubt over the catastrophe and Holocaust being faced by the Palestinians," said the president, who had previously dismissed as a "myth" the killing of an estimated six million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II.

"I tell the governments who support Zionism to ... let the migrants (Jews) return to their countries of origin. If you think you owe them something, give them some of your land," he said.

Iran's turbaned supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also accused the United States of seeking to place the entire region under Israeli control.

"The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Khamenei said.

There was no immediate reaction from Washington, but French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy severely condemned Ahmadinejad for his latest remarks on Israel.

"As I have had occasion to do before, when the Iranian president made similar statements, I condemn these inacceptable remarks in the strongest possible terms," Douste-Blazy said in a statement.

"Israel's right to exist and the reality of the Holocaust should not be disputed," he added.


Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: GAP on April 15, 2006, 11:55:59
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/15/D8H0CJ882.html
Quote
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Quote
Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar also began a fundraising tour of Arab nations Friday seeking new aid, but Arab states have been reluctant to back up their vocal support for the Palestinians with cash. ]

How many Arab countries have spouted the rhetoric about helping Palestine, but when it come time to anty up...well the quote about Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zaha kinda says it all. Granted there is a potential issue here, but maybe the Iranians are counting on the West to shoot from the hip thus giving them the argument "see what they are trying to do!!!" The converse is North Korea. The US made all the same noise, but backed off. That was a mistake we will pay for for decades to come.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on April 16, 2006, 00:11:46
Well, as for the Iran cutting off oil, the Price as of 0730 this morning in Windsor is $1.05 a litre.  And that is just with the rumours of sabre rattling.


Well, here in Brisbane, today its $1.18-$1.22/L. For propane 51 to 56 cents /L, diesel around $1.30/L. One Aussie $ = about 72 cents US


Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 16, 2006, 10:02:42
William Arkin of the Washington Post outlines US war planning against Iran:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401907.html

His overall conclusions:

'Contingency planning for a bolt-out-of-the-blue attack, let alone full-fledged war, against Iran may seem incredible right now. But in the secretive world of military commands and war planners, it is an everyday and unfortunate reality. Iran needs to understand that the United States isn't hamstrung by a lack of options. It needs to realize that it can't just stonewall and evade its international obligations, that it can't burrow further underground in hopes that it will "win" merely because war is messy.

On the surface, Iran controls the two basic triggers that could set off U.S. military action. The first would be its acquisition of nuclear capability in defiance of the international community. Despite last week's bluster from Tehran, the country is still years away from a nuclear weapon, let alone a workable one. We may have a global strike war plan oriented toward attacking countries with weapons of mass destruction, but that plan is also focused on North Korea, China and presumably Russia. The Bush administration is not going to wait for a nuclear attack. The United States is now a first-strike nation.

The second trigger would be Iran's lashing out militarily (or through proxy terrorism) at the United States or its allies, or closing the Strait of Hormuz to international oil traffic. Sources say that CENTCOM and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed "flexible deterrent options" in case Iran were to take such actions.

One might ask how these options could have any deterrent effect when the government won't talk about them. This is another reason why Rumsfeld should acknowledge that the United States is preparing war plans for Iran -- and that this is not just routine. It is specifically a response to that country's illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, its meddling in Iraq and its support for international terrorism.

Iran needs to know that the administration is dead serious. But we all need to know that even absent an Iranian nuke or an Iranian attack of any kind, there is still another catastrophic scenario that could lead to war...'

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: milnews.ca on April 16, 2006, 10:59:40
A little something else to throw into the "factors" basket when considering "Courses Open"....

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409).

http://tinyurl.com/q8uws

Iran hardliners register volunteers for suicide raids
Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:13 PM IST

''By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Some 200 Iranians have volunteered in the past few days to carry out "martyrdom missions" against U.S. and British interests if Iran is attacked over its nuclear programme, a hardline group said on Sunday.

The United States and other Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to master enrichment technology to build atomic weapons, a charge Iran denies. Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution, but has not ruled out a military option.

Mohammad Ali Samadi, spokesman for the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, said fresh fears over a possible U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear sites helped attract volunteers during its latest recruitment drive.

"Because of the recent threats, we have started to register more volunteers since Friday," Samadi told Reuters by telephone.

"Some 200 people have registered to carry out operations against our enemies. America and Britain are definitely considered enemies."

Chanting "Death to America" and "Nuclear technology is our right", volunteers registered their names at the former American Embassy in southern Tehran on Sunday.

They signed a document called "Registration form for martyrdom-seeking operations" and pledged to "defend the Islamic Republic's interests".

"We will give a good lesson to those who dare to attack our country," said Ali, a 25-year-old masked volunteer, after filling out registration form.

When asked why he had covered his face, Ali said: "I do not want to be recognised when travelling abroad to harm American and British interests."

TENS OF THOUSANDS REGISTERED

The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, which says it has no affiliation with the government, was formed in 2004. Since then Samadi said some 52,000 people have signed up to be involved in possible attacks.

The Sunday Times of London, quoting unnamed Iranian officials, reported Iran had 40,000 trained suicide bombers prepared to strike western targets if Iran is attacked.

"The main force, named the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards, was first seen last month when members marched in a military parade," the report said.

But Samadi denied the report.

"The Revolutionary Guards have no links to martyrdom-seeking operations. We are the only martyrdom seeking group in Iran," he said. "And we are an independent group."

No Iranians are thought to have directly executed suicide bombings in recent years. But the United States has accused Iran of being a state sponsor of terrorism.

In Sunday's New York Times a former White House counterterrorism expert said Iran's response to any U.S. military attack would be to use "its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world".

"Iran has forces at its command far superior to anything al Qaeda was ever able to field," wrote former White House counterterror chief Richard Clarke and former State Department official Steven Simon.

The "martyrdom" registration coincided with a conference on the Palestinian cause. Iran has refused to recognise Israel and supports anti-Israeli groups like Hamas and Hizbollah.

Inside the embassy, the walls were decorated with pictures of Palestinian suicide bombers. Videos of Israeli army attacks on Palestinians were shown on a wide screen. Books and CDs on the Palestinian uprising were also for sale.

In 1979, the then-American embassy was seized and its staff were taken hostage by militant students in 1979. The 52 hostages were freed after 444 days in captivity. ''

(DON'T LOOK HERE IF YOU WANT TO AVOID A BLATANT SELF PROMOTIONAL PLUG  ;) - I'm collecting & posting news/background on Iran here:
http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/IRN:%20%20Mil%20Options - feel free to drop by; feedback always welcome! )
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 16, 2006, 12:04:37
I don't see the US accepting 40,000 Iranian visa applications for quite some time. Seriously this nuclear strike issue was cooked up by the New Yorker to sell magazines and to stick it to the Bush administration. I dont see any US President using nuke's under any circumstance except retaliatory. The regime is determined to have nuclear weapons. How determined is the west to prevent that prospect ? Iran may be betting that we dont want to risk war to stop them. Saddam made the same calculation though and he is in a cell now. If the military card is played then I think there will be some form of regime change as part of the overall plan. Until the regime changes we will constantly be looking over our shoulder.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Navy_Blue on April 16, 2006, 14:22:28
But the change in leadership in Iraq hasn't solved much.  Iran would be just the same insurgents and locals blowing themselves up to kill soldiers of what ever coalition the US can talk into rolling over Iran.

 :cdn:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: SeaKingTacco on April 16, 2006, 14:50:31
Quote
But the change in leadership in Iraq hasn't solved much.  Iran would be just the same insurgents and locals blowing themselves up to kill soldiers of what ever coalition the US can talk into rolling over Iran.

Hasn't solved much?  When is the last time Iraq threatened to re-invade Kuwait?  When was the Republican Guard operation against the Kurds or the Shiaa in the Euphrates delta?  Not saying all is rosy in Iraq, but some problems were solved...

Not saying that I have inside info, but who says that the US would necessarily have to invade Iran to change the regime?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Have Computer Problem on April 16, 2006, 22:03:00
From Macleans January 23rd 2006 :
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is rumoured to have taken part in the 1979 seizure of the American embassy in Tehran during the early days of the Islamic revolution, and some former hostages and a journalist who covered the crisis say they recognise him from that time.
Wow, it's starting to make a looooong list...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: muskrat89 on April 16, 2006, 23:25:54
Quote
How many Arab countries have spouted the rhetoric about helping Palestine, but when it come time to anty up

Coincidentally today (or maybe yesterday) Iran committed $50 million in aid to the Palestinians
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 17, 2006, 13:48:21
You aren't a suicide bomber until you go "boom".  Until then, you are a just a big talker.  Middle eastern hype and propaganda knows no bounds.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Navy_Blue on April 18, 2006, 11:45:50
The change in leadership has not solved anything until people in that country start playing nice and look at what they have as an opportunity.  Iraq hasn't been a threat to anyone since the 90's.  After Desert Storm all eyes were on him and he knew it.  The US bombed anything that moved into that no fly zone that wasn't supposed to be there.  Saddam spent more money on Palaces and and himself then he did on his Republican guard.  He was a nut bar with extra peanuts. 

I think if you asked most Iraqi's today I think they would be happier trying to hide in the shadows of a Dictator than live through endless road side bombs and suicide attacks.  The Kurdish are loving it they practically have there own country in the north (red flag).  South of Iraq is pretty quite but they kinda like Iran (red flag).  Not great if you ask me.

Iraq and the stability of the middle east has gone down hill since Mr Bush said the major fighting was over.  The US didn't plan for this whole insurgency thing, they thought everything would be hunky dory if Saddam was out of the picture.  I can't see how even today the top brass still had a "We'll be home by Christmas" mentality.

There is a very real possibility that they will leave Iraq much like the Russians left Afghanistan. 

 :cdn:

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: ready to go on April 19, 2006, 00:22:15
Quote
WASHINGTON, April 18 —As diplomats meeting in Moscow failed to reach agreement on how best to raise pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, the American and Iranian presidents, both using tough language, staked out unyielding positions today. In response to a reporter's question, President Bush declined to rule out a nuclear attack to stop Iran from building atomic weapons if diplomacy fails. "All options are on the table," he said. But Mr. Bush added, "We want to solve this issue diplomatically, and we're working hard to do so."

In Tehran, a defiant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the Iranian military that it had to be "constantly ready," and he warned bluntly that Iran would "cut off the hand of any aggressor," The Associated Press reported.

In Moscow, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said diplomats of the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus Germany had recognized the "need for a stiff response to Iran's flagrant violations of its international responsibilities," The Associated Press reported.

But he said talks on possible sanctions against Tehran had failed to produce an agreement. Mr. Burns said the United States expected Security Council action if Iran misses an April 28 deadline to stop uranium enrichment.

Neither Mr. Burns nor other American officials would say whether Russia and China had softened their opposition to sanctions.

Tensions over Iran have helped push oil prices to record highs. Crude oil for May delivery rose 90 cents today to settle at $71.35 a barrel, after trading as high as $71.60 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The diplomats meeting in Moscow hoped to narrow their own differences over how best to persuade Iran to halt work on nuclear weapons.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's warning came in a martial setting, at a Tehran parade commemorating Army Day that featured the latest in Iranian weaponry, The A.P. reported. Speaking hours before the Moscow meeting, he told the military that it must be prepared to defend Iran.

"Today, you are among the world's most powerful armies because you rely on God," Mr. Ahmadinejad declared.

"The land of Iran has created a powerful army that can powerfully defend the political borders and the integrity of the Iranian nation and cut off the hand of any aggressor and place the sign of disgrace on their forehead."

But he sought to underline that Iran bore no aggressive intentions unless attacked. "The power of our army will be no threat to any country," he said. "It is humble toward friends and a shooting star toward enemies."

The United States and Britain have said that if Iran continues uranium-enrichment activities past an April 28 deadline set by the Security Council, they will press for a resolution making the demand compulsory.

Russia and China, both with trade and strategic ties to Iran, have insisted that diplomacy will require more time. A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mikhail Kamynin, said earlier that "neither sanctions nor the use of force will lead to the solution of the problem," the Itar-Tass news agency reported. But Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called on Iran to halt uranium enrichment.

Mr. Bush, in brief comments made after announcing White House staffing changes, said that he would urge President Hu Jintao of China to increase Beijing's pressure on Iran when Mr. Hu visits the White House on Thursday.

The top Chinese nonproliferation official, Cui Tiankai, visited Tehran over the weekend to urge Iranian leaders to seek a negotiated solution, officials said.

Mr. Cui spent 90 minutes in Moscow today meeting with Mr. Burns ahead of the meeting there, said Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman.

Mr. McCormack said, before the meeting had ended in Moscow, that diplomats were expected to weigh various ways for the Security Council to increase pressure on Iran, "whether that's sanctions or asset freezes or travel restrictions" on diplomats. He said there was also talk of ways that individual countries could increase the pressure on Iran.

Mr. Bush urged a united effort by countries "who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon." The United States has been working closely with Britain, France and Germany on the issue.

The president's comment that "all options are on the table" came after a reporter asked whether, when Mr. Bush used those words previously, he meant to include the possibility of a nuclear strike.

"All options are on the table," Mr. Bush replied plainly, before adding, "We want to solve this issue diplomatically." The phrase has become a commonplace of administration officials since last summer in describing concerns about Iran.

It was used last month by Vice President Dick Cheney, who seemed to hint at military action or even the overthrow of the Tehran government. "We join other nations in sending that regime a clear message," Mr. Cheney said. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

He also said that the Security Council would "impose meaningful consequences" if Iran remained in defiance.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech was broadcast live on state-run Iranian television, and foreign military attachés attended the parade, during which Iran displayed radar-avoiding missiles and super-fast torpedoes.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has issued a series of highly provocative comments since coming to office, jolted outside observers last week by saying that Iran had enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges, a step that could lead either to the development of power generation or the construction of atomic bombs.

Iran also asserted that it is pursuing a far more sophisticated method of making atomic fuel, using a so-called P-2 centrifuge, which could greatly speed its progress to developing a nuclear weapon.

While Iran insists that it has the right to conduct research for civilian energy production, the United States has said that Iran lost world trust by hiding portions of its nuclear program for years.

American officials also point to Mr. Ahmadinejad's public calls for the destruction of Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/world/middleeast/18cnd-iran.html?hp&ex=1145419200&en=cb696ef1f091d462&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on April 20, 2006, 13:35:08
From Chaos Manor:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view409.html

Quote
Iran and Nuclear Weapons

First, anyone not blind will see that the West has been teaching powerful lessons over the years:

The first lesson is: if you are a dictator, or part of an unpopular government structure, get nukes, get them quick, get them in any way you have to. Get nukes and get them now.

The second lesson is, don't let go. Even if you are a reluctant dictator, even if you hate dictatorship and wish peace and democracy to your country, do not relax your grip, and do not contemplate retirement. That way lies persecution of yourself and your family, and you will probably die in a foreign jail. If you are lucky you may be put under house arrest or seek asylum in a foreign embassy.

If you are a dictator, your only chance of survival is to hang on and get nukes. Nothing else works.

Those are the lessons we teach, and anyone with sense has learned them well.

Certainly the mullahs have. Whether they have always wanted nukes, or learned to want them from the lessons the West has been teaching, is not important. They want nukes, they want them soon, and objectively they have every reason to desire them. It's a very rational desire.

That is the first thing we must understand.

Next: the mullahs understand that time is not really on their side: the West's cultural weapons of mass destruction are gnawing away at the vitals of fundamentalist Shiite Islam. The Shah opened the door, and his opening to the West and the White Revolution, while partly shut down, was permanent: in Iran they know that there is more to education than sitting on the floor and memorizing an ancient book; that there is more to life than blowing yourself up.

While the mullahs may have hopes for a different sort of society for Iran than is very likely to come, they aren't entirely unrealistic. And one way to divert this seduction of their young people is to stir the pot, make the confrontations important, go as far as they can short of provoking the West to invade. The attractions of blue jeans and rock music are great. Islam doesn't seem to be enough to overcome them. Patriotism is needed. That may do the job. And if you can convince the young people that jihad is necessary, that the West isn't going to let you have blue jeans and iPods, that the West is going to nuke your country and steal your oil and reduce you to peasantry, occupy your land but give you no security from bandits and religious enemies: if you can convince your young people that the West isn't going to let you have its goodies because it wants to steal everything you have and give you nothing -- then you are home free.

And that, I put it to you, is the mullah strategy.  Convince the youth of Iran that the West is their implacable enemy; that the West is coming for them.

And if that takes provoking a tactical "surgical" nuclear strike on some Iranian facilities, why, it's a high price, but the stakes are very high.

And of course whatever we do to Iran and Syria merely confirms everyone's desires to get nukes and get them fast.

Contemplate this while trying to decide what to do about Iran and Syria.

There were a number of advocates of preventive war in the 1940's and 1950's. Patton's view, "We're going to have to fight the Russian SOB's anyway, so why don't we do it while we have a GD army over here to do it with?" was popular with many. Deterrence and containment, the long term strategy that we adopted, was less spectacular and didn't seem all that attractive. No sounding trumpets, no drums and flag. No SAC missions and flying bombs. The force would be generated and head out over the Arctic only to be called back. Plenty of drills. Men and women sitting in isolation in deep bunkers as the klaxons went off. EWO. EWO. Emergency War Orders. Emergency War Orders. I have a message in five parts. Tango. Xray.  And so forth. But it was all a drill.

Deterrence is long, unspectacular, and often boring. Containment is frustrating. It worked, though. It contained militant Communism, a philosophy so attractive that it still claims a number of tenured professors. Communism was a lot more seductive to the West than militant Islam ever could be. Yet, in a few generations, that light failed, and Communism collapsed, not in nuclear fire but with a whimper and some artillery shells fired at a parliament building. Yet at one time, the USSR had 26,000 nuclear weapons, most of them deliverable and aimed at the USA. How many can Iran acquire with their best efforts? How many deliverable? By what means? We contained the USSR with 26,000. We deterred the USSR and chiliastic Communism which at one time had as militant a desire to sweep the world as ever did any jihadist.

Containment says: the enemy is expansive, and one of his strengths is that he is convinced that his victory is inevitable. God, or the flywheel of history, or the objective economic factors, or the laws of history, make victory certain. March in step with the flywheel of history. But if we show the enemy this is not true, that he is not expanding, that he is stuck with his inefficient system to stew in his own juices; when there is not enough to go around, then petty temptations to corruption become irresistible. If you believe strongly enough in the underlying religion, you will put up with hardships for the cause; but if the worms of doubt set in, and there is a shortage of the good things of life, human nature takes over. Corruption sets in. Inefficiencies get worse.

If we nuke Iran to destroy their capability for making nuclear weapons, we make it legitimate to use nuclear weapons to achieve cultural goals; we make preventive war a legitimate thing to do.

The result will be a change in strategy: buy a nuke. Use terror, use bribes, use infiltration, use any means necessary to get some nukes, and do nothing to provoke the west until you have them; but get them. In the West most things are for sale. Find ways to buy them.

Containment and deterrence work. Those are not spectacular policies; but they are proven. They do work. Contain Iran, and let our Cultural Weapons of Mass Destruction have time to do their work. Syria and Iran have no counter weapons. Syria is already a defensive dictatorship with no pretense of legitimacy whose sole goal is stay in power. Iran is under the control of mullahs: will they prevail over the next Iranian generation? If so, how? What are their arguments? What can we do to make them lose control? And what can we do to convince the young Iranians that they are better off following the mullahs?

Is anyone asking those questions?

The key question here is deterrence realy an option? IF the world view of the mullahs rejects the concept of deterrence, then they will attempt to strike regardless of the consequences; suicide bombing on the scale of Götterdämmerung. Myself, I would push the "Purple Finger" strategy for all its worth, redouble the "Marshall plan" for rebuilding the Iraqi and Afghanistani economies and send in container ships full of free iPODs to be distributed throughout the Middle east and SouthWest Asia, but be prepared to pull the trigger.

Also read this (long) article by Mark Styen: http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_iran.html

(edited to add link)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: AOG101 on April 21, 2006, 10:11:12
Last night on CBC ,airs again may 8,on cbc news world

http://www.cbc.ca/nuclearjihad/

http://www.cbc.ca/nuclearjihad/timeline.html
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 21, 2006, 16:28:21
Last night on CBC ,airs again may 8,on cbc news world

http://www.cbc.ca/nuclearjihad/

http://www.cbc.ca/nuclearjihad/timeline.html

Somebody needs a .50 cal career path reorganizer.   :sniper:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: FMRWO on April 28, 2006, 12:48:24
I believe that, as soldiers, more than anyone, we are in a position to appreciate the risks and costs of war. I dislike very much the thought of going or sending someone to fight. I would however, do so unhesitatingly when all other options have been considered and exhausted.

We must learn from History. With hindsight, we know that the World Wars could have been averted by decisive action before the first shots were fired. I believe we are at such a crossroad.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI has made his intentions very clear. Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons will have disastrous consequences for all, (the Iranian population included). It is time to act decisively and armed response must be seriously considered.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 28, 2006, 17:13:25
Your excellent decisive attitude seems to be in stark contrast to your UN avatar.  Hopefully they will start to feel the same way.  :salute:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 29, 2006, 21:20:06
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=4722

Iran's possible reaction to US strikes on its nuclear program.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 30, 2006, 05:47:45
From the a/m article:

Iran's Secret Plan  if Attacked by US Codenamed "Judgement Day"
Asharq Al-Awsat Exclusive
27/04/2006


Iranian Opsec is a bit lacking...

The plan, which also includes the carrying out of suicide operations targeting US and British interests in the region, as well as their Arab and Muslim allies, in case Iran is attacked, was drawn up by a number of experts guerrilla warfare and terrorist operations, and was revealed by a senior source in the Iranian armed forces' joint chief of staff headed by the veterinary doctor  Hassan Firouzabadi,
You know you are getting under their skin when they start breaking out the combat veterinarians.  

According to Iran, the latest military plan includes:

1- A missile strike directly targeting the US bases in the Persian Gulf and Iraq , as soon as nuclear installations are hit.

2- Suicide operations in a number of Arab and Muslim countries against US embassies and missions and US military bases and economic and oil installations related to US and British companies. The campaign might also target the economic and military installations of countries allied with the United States .

3- Launch attacks by the Basij and the Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi fighters loyal to Iran against US and British forces in Iraq , from border regions in central and southern Iraq .

4- Hezbollah to launch hundreds of rockets against military and economic targets in Israel .

According to the source, in case the US military attacks continue, more than 50 Shehab-3 missiles will be targeted against Israel and the al Quads Brigades will give the go-ahead for more than 50 terrorists cells in Canada, the US and Europe to attack civil and industrial targets in these countries.

What about the last stage in the plan?

Here, the Iranian source hesitated before saying with worry; this stage might represent the beginning of a world war, given that extremists will seek to maximize civilian casualties by exploding germ and chemical bombs as well as dirty nuclear bombs across western and Arab cities.


Okay, wasn't it talk like that which got Iraq's *** kicked?  These clowns have no concept of "Shut the f-up".  Iran definitely is trying to be the big shooter now that Sadam is out of the mix.  I think the writing is on the wall for this one......
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Screw on April 30, 2006, 08:19:31
Can Iran even deny being totally in bed with terrorists? Basically everything in there is talking about go aheads for terrorists cells and organizations.

Screw

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on April 30, 2006, 11:47:14
I don't think they deny it.  In fact, it appears that terrorists are part of their ops plan to attack various parts of the planet if they get bumped.  At least they say that.  I think upwards of 60% of that is wishful thinking and flat out BS.  However, their intentions are pretty clear:  watch us get nukes, or bomb us back into the stone age. 
I'll take modern stone age cultures for $1000, Alex.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on May 01, 2006, 00:19:53
From reading the article and judging from their past behavior, it is my considered opinion that the only practical way of limiting the damage to the Middle East and to ourselves is to decapitate the Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guard. Strikes directed against their persons (government leaders, Revolutionary Guard units) as well as communications and electrical infrastructure to disable their command and control apparatus, followed by strikes directed at severing their transportation infrastructure at critical junctures will probably be the game plan, only requiring the services of SOF operators to identify and mark the high value targets for incoming planes and missiles.

"We" in the West don't need to follow up with occupation troops, simply let the Iranian people realize their oppressors have been crippled and are no longer able to exert influence over the country. This is indeed a bad option, plunging Iran into chaos and possible civil war, but the other alternatives seem even worse. On the plus side, without Iran as a safe haven and conduit for intelligence and funds, many terrorist groups such as the AQ, Hammas, Hezbollah etc. will find operations that much more difficult to carry out. They may be able to conduct a flurry of operations with cached supplies and manpower, but their operational information will become stale very quickly and the internal cohesion of these groups might come unglued (fighting over cached money and weapons, for example).The long term outlook will be better for us if and when this happens.

To make it as politically palatable as possible, I would not expect something like this to be launched until there is an unmistakable Iranian provocation (as if there aren't enough now) which will provide the Bush Administration political cover and allow the President to finish the job quickly and effectively. The range of choices is narrowing for both Iran and the West; dark days ahead.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: paracowboy on May 01, 2006, 00:25:44
dark days ahead.
or job security. I'm a half-full kinda guy.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: FMRWO on May 02, 2006, 13:55:04
Things are never as cut and dry as I've made them out to be. Iran may in fact still be quite a long ways from developping a nuclear weapon & :

"Tehran says it wants nuclear energy only for electricity. It insists on a right to atomic power for peaceful use under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA has unearthed no proof of a military program in three years of investigation. " - (Reuters: Iran confronts UN powers with nuclear fait accompli Tue May 2, 2006 9:16am ET)

However:
Iran says it will pursue industrial-scale enrichment based on 3,000 centrifuges it plans to start installing later in 2006. That many could yield enough fuel for one bomb within a year. - (Same)

A year would give the USA time to open dialogue with Iran (Washington severed ties with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution) - the absence of diplomatic ties does nothing to build trust & bring us closer to a peaceful resolution. But we've got to get talking & fast. Hey, they're talking with North Korea ...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 02, 2006, 14:31:38
People need to get their heads outta their asses. If Israel can have nuclear weapons, then Iran should also be able to have nuclear weapons to balance things out. Until such time as Iran gets its hands on the nukes, there will deffinately not be peace in the middle east. Israel has no reason to talk when they are the dominant power. I think the US has been sucking up to that god-aweful creation for far too long now anyway. Israel should be moved somewhere far away from the Arabs, like Russia or something. Hell we could donate somewhere in Northern Ontario for their new home. Then everybody wins. We could use more people here anyway, and they'd bring their army too so we 'd have apaches! If not we should let them deal with each other. Both sides become a glass parking lot and the rest of us can go on with business as usual.

This whole affair smells rotten. The double standard is plain for everyone to see, except the US policy makers, who are in the pocket of the big arms dealers. Can't have world peace...oh hell no, that would be bad for business. Must keep the war with Eurasia or East Asia or wherever going to support my Haliburton shares and Lockheed.  So many are ignorant out there ...they just dont' have a clue.

GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD (mutually assured destruction)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: GAP on May 02, 2006, 15:00:06
Gee, for a minute there I thought  you were going to shout "PEACE WITHIN OUR TIME" ;)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Peacenik on May 02, 2006, 15:01:59
"GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD"

Mutually assured destruction works only if both participants are rational.
If one side decides that God will protect them, and if not, its his will,
they punch the proverbial button. 

Would you give a bank robber a gun so that no one gets hurt... The bank
robber has already proven he is irrational.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 02, 2006, 16:07:46
A good piece by William Arkin, "War by September? Not Likely."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/war_by_september_not_likely.html

Excerpts:

'In the department of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks wrote a flimsy and inflammatory article yesterday that war with Iran will start "between now and September." ..

srael is going to start this war, based, Brooks says, based on a fact she discovered that Iran is acquiring a Russian surface-to-air missile system that once deployed will make its weapons of mass destruction facilities invulnerable.

A wonder weapon, an Israeli rational calculation as to the optimum point of attack, a Bush administration "asleep at the wheel," all wrong, wrong, wrong; and irresponsible to boot.

I have been writing in this blog and in the paper Post about war planning for Iran, and about how the Iran and the United States seem intent upon building a house with no exits.

But I also think that war is not imminent, that is, it is not planned.  Iran of course out of panic or irrationally could attack.  So could the Israelis.  Irrationally...

Her argument is wrong on two counts.  First, that the Tor M1 missiles will change the calculus of anything in Iran.  Second, that Israel has an "ability" to unilaterally destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, and thus will lose it in the future.

Since Brooks' arguments employs obscure facts to scare lay readers of the Los Angeles Times, consider these additional facts:

    * The Russian Tor M1 surface-to-air missile system (SA-15 Gauntlet in NATO parlance) is not some wonder weapon.  The first models of the Tor M1 were deployed 15 years ago, which means it is originally based on 1980's technology.  Anyone want to buy a Soviet designed missile system from the 1980's?  Get a warranty.
    * The Tor M1 has a maximum range of about 25 km and an optimum range of 14-15 km.  The system is designed primarily to protect ground forces from unmanned surveillance vehicles (drones) and attack helicopters.  It is not optimized or particularly suitable for "strategic" air defense of fixed facilities, particularly large ones.  I doubt Iran would deploy the Tor systems at is nuclear facilities anyhow.
    * The Tor M1 is outranged by most U.S. and Israeli stand-off weapons, even by standard satellite guided bombs, which can be delivered outside of its effective range.   If the Tor M1 were defending an Iranian facility, an attacking airplane wouldn't even have to come within range of the surface-to-air missile defense system in order to deliver its weapons.
    * The Tor M1 is owned by NATO member Greece.  Get it?  We own it.  We know how it works, how the guidance works, what frequencies it operates on.  We have acquired copies, reverse engineered it, built Tor M1 simulators, and programmed anti-radiation missiles to home in on Tor signals.  I bet you Israel has much of this information as well.  Most important though, it is not some wonder weapon.'..

Mark
Ottawa 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 02, 2006, 17:20:55
"GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD"

Mutually assured destruction works only if both participants are rational.
If one side decides that God will protect them, and if not, its his will,
they punch the proverbial button. 

Would you give a bank robber a gun so that no one gets hurt... The bank
robber has already proven he is irrational.

Iran's leader is all BS talk. They're not going to nuke anything, and that's if they even get nukes one day. They've already said that they'd continue to allow intrusive nuclear inspections as long as they are allowed to continue research and that this will be a peaceful program. The whole thing stinks highly. The US is trying real hard to back them into a corner they can't escape from. You can't just tell a country they must "stop all research" into something as important to the future of all of us as nuclear technology- it's a joke. Has everyone forgotten about North Korea? A guy that is a true nutty dictator (the Iranian leader was ELECTED) who HAS NUKES!!! Why not go after him? (he's threatened the US with their own pre emptive strike capability numerous times).  I'll tell you why...THE WHOLE THING IS A BS US CONCOCTiON! Attacking Iran will lead to major fallout (literally) and is a joke. Don't be sucked in by the hype.
I'd more likely sign up to help defend Iran from the aggressors than join in any US led crap- if it happens.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: SeaKingTacco on May 02, 2006, 19:06:58
Quote
I'd more likely sign up to help defend Iran from the aggressors than join in any US led crap- if it happens

Can we help you out with the airfare?  I'm sure you would be wlecomed with open arms in Tehran... ::)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 02, 2006, 21:29:30
Can we help you out with the airfare?  I'm sure you would be wlecomed with open arms in Tehran... ::)

I was being sarcastic. Are you saying you would support an attack on Iran, a democratically elected government, seeking nuclear tech just like the rest of us? Would you die or send your troops to possibly be killed for US foreign policy? Let's hear some debate. I wanna know if ANYONE would actually support this action.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 03, 2006, 08:58:54
I am betting I will be told to not "feed the trolls", but here goes.
I was being sarcastic. Are you saying you would support an attack on Iran, a democratically elected government, seeking nuclear tech just like the rest of us? Would you die or send your troops to possibly be killed for US foreign policy? Let's hear some debate. I wanna know if ANYONE would actually support this action.

Okay, first, you call yourself CanuckTroop.  You are telling us that you are a member of the CF, and even a member of the Armoured Corp?  So fill in your profile and indicate to which unit you owe allegiance.  I find it very difficult to believe anyone who has real military experience would post as you have been. 
Next, the reason to deal with Iran is because they DONT have nukes yet.  N Korea does, so it is a much more difficult situation.  In simple terms:  A country that has a nuclear bomb, can USE a nuclear bomb.  If a country does NOT have a nuclear bomb, they cannot USE a nuclear bomb.  See how that works?
The only country that is putting itself in a corner is Iran.  They are the ones that started with the anti-Israel talk and made comments about the death of that nation.  How is that supposed to be taken?  Iran is trying to take the spiritual lead in the middle east, and they are rolling some very dangerous dice. 
Last, only a complete donkey would suggest nuclear proliferation as a solution to middle east conflict.  If Iran is getting big milage with anti-Israel TALK, how "cool" would they be if they nuked Tel Aviv?  And don't forget, Israel HAS nukes.  Two decades after the end of the cold war, we really need to see a nuclear exchange?  Stick to playing HALO on your X-Box, champ.  I'm sure you are a very effective "troop" there.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Peacenik on May 03, 2006, 11:48:09
CanuckTroop, You've bought into Iranian propaganda.  There is no doubt that they are after the bomb. 
There are several proven, and more economical routes to generate nuclear power... the fact that they
are pursuing uranium enrichment means they want the bomb.

Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.  The only remaining question is whether we have the political will
to go, how we do it, and when...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 11:58:09
CanuckTroop, You've bought into Iranian propaganda.  There is no doubt that they are after the bomb. 
There are several proven, and more economical routes to generate nuclear power... the fact that they
are pursuing uranium enrichment means they want the bomb.

Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.  The only remaining question is whether we have the political will
to go, how we do it, and when...

You have to enrich uranium to make it useful for ANYTHING, including nuclear power (under 5%). It's all you guys that seem to be buying into US propaganda. Iran has said that they would allow "intrusive" IAEA inspections as long as can keep a peaceful program for nuclear power- so everyone would know if they were trying to make a bomb anyway. This is all US government hype and only the ignorant masses are buying into it.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 03, 2006, 12:02:39
Actually its the ignorant folks on the left that have bought into Iran's Big Lie. Unless they are stopped they will have nuclear weapons. Based on their rhetoric they will use them or just by threatening to use nuclear weapons they could force oil prices over $100 a barrel, which is unacceptable as well.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 12:10:06
Actually its the ignorant folks on the left that have bought into Iran's Big Lie. Unless they are stopped they will have nuclear weapons. Based on their rhetoric they will use them or just by threatening to use nuclear weapons they could force oil prices over $100 a barrel, which is unacceptable as well.

Who cares if they get nuclear weapons? Israel has enough.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 12:28:49
I am betting I will be told to not "feed the trolls", but here goes.
Okay, first, you call yourself CanuckTroop.  You are telling us that you are a member of the CF, and even a member of the Armoured Corp?  So fill in your profile and indicate to which unit you owe allegiance.  I find it very difficult to believe anyone who has real military experience would post as you have been. 
Next, the reason to deal with Iran is because they DONT have nukes yet.  N Korea does, so it is a much more difficult situation.  In simple terms:  A country that has a nuclear bomb, can USE a nuclear bomb.  If a country does NOT have a nuclear bomb, they cannot USE a nuclear bomb.  See how that works?
The only country that is putting itself in a corner is Iran.  They are the ones that started with the anti-Israel talk and made comments about the death of that nation.  How is that supposed to be taken?  Iran is trying to take the spiritual lead in the middle east, and they are rolling some very dangerous dice. 
Last, only a complete donkey would suggest nuclear proliferation as a solution to middle east conflict.  If Iran is getting big milage with anti-Israel TALK, how "cool" would they be if they nuked Tel Aviv?  And don't forget, Israel HAS nukes.  Two decades after the end of the cold war, we really need to see a nuclear exchange?  Stick to playing HALO on your X-Box, champ.  I'm sure you are a very effective "troop" there.


I'm a former reserve infantry member. You can take it or leave it cab driver. Ask me some skill testing question if you really need to, or shut your pie hole.

As far as the topic of discussion goes. Yes I guess that makes me a donkey, because I believe Iran has the same right to nuclear power as anywhere else on earth. Fossil fuels are coming to an end in the not so distant future and every other country is ramping up it's nuclear power capabilty. Just look at the price of uranium right now, or the number of Candu reactors we're selling worldwide. How can the United States, or any other country, tell an independant nation "you are not allowed to continue research" into something that Iran and the rest of us WILL need regardless at some point. This whole Bush doctrine of attacking anywhere that threatens Israel or oil supplies thing is such a joke and it sickens me that there are so many buying into it. I thought Canadians, especially military members, were smarter than this.

As far as Israel goes, they have enough nukes to defend themselves. IMO they shouldn't be in the middle east anyway, since they are a failed concoction of the UN and not a real country. I agree with the arabs on this. Move them to Northern Ontario or something and put them out of our misery.

I only hope there are some more enlightened CF members out there that can use their own grey matter rather than handing that over to politicians. As far as I recall, when you get your commission, you don't sign away your brain as well. Of course being an LT Zipper head oughtta know that.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Nerf herder on May 03, 2006, 13:00:13

I'm a former reserve infantry member. You can take it or leave it cab driver. Ask me some skill testing question if you really need to, or shut your pie hole.

Lose the attitude or I'll punt you right now. There is no need of this type of diatribe here at all.

You don't want to fill out your profile, so be it...."Former Reserve Infanteer" it is then.

You're attitude, thusfar, has reveiled enough that most of the senior posters will place you on ignore.

For someone who joined this site not even 2 days ago you're already on the radar of every mod here.

You're on the ramp with out a chute right now....how's that for a skill testing question.    ::)

Regards
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 14:19:20
Lose the attitude or I'll punt you right now. There is no need of this type of diatribe here at all.

You don't want to fill out your profile, so be it...."Former Reserve Infanteer" it is then.

You're attitude, thusfar, has reveiled enough that most of the senior posters will place you on ignore.

For someone who joined this site not even 2 days ago you're already on the radar of every mod here.

You're on the ramp with out a chute right now....how's that for a skill testing question.    ::)

Regards

I was just returning fire..........ooh the military puns.....
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Nerf herder on May 03, 2006, 15:22:15
I was just returning fire..........ooh the military puns.....

Returning fire or not, this is not the first time you've acted in such a manner on this site and it will not  be tolerated.



Be more professional in your approach and responses from now on.

Next thing you will hear if this happens again will be....

STAND-BY

Regards
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: AOG101 on May 03, 2006, 15:27:40

canuck troop.
There is absolutely no doubt that they will want to develop weapons,One can't compare Israel to Iran,Israel has been threatened by Iran,Don't need to say more about that.Iran is a very unstable country,The elected versus the non-elected ,president versus Ayatollah. For them joining the IAEA it is simply a way of making the rest of us think that they want nuclear power,So ,while inspectors are overseeing their program,they can enrich Uranium,to a point where they can build a bomb,perhaps nothing to large,say,About the size of the Hiroshima blast,By todays standards a primative device but none the less a nuclear device. So ,by joining the IAEA,has part of the non-proliferation treaty,you build your weapons grade plutonium under the noses of the inspectors,when you feel you have reached the point when you want to announce that you have done so,You declare that being part of the treaty jeopardizes the interests of the state,and you withdraw from the NPT with three months notice. North korea? I can explain how a cascade enrichment system works,But,bottom line they are attempting to upgrade their cascade system they have now,to where they will be able to make a higher grade plutonium,Do they want the plutonium for bombs?Well.If someone offers to build them a reactor that can generate power,which three countries have.And they refuse because with these types of reactors they can not refine the heavy water .what does that tell you, about what they want the plutonium for?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 03, 2006, 16:32:17
Who cares if they get nuclear weapons? Israel has enough.

Given the level of threat that Israel has experienced in the past, and the fact that they have used restraint in using their nuclear arsenal should suggest to most that they are a responsible nation and do not need to be disarmed.  NOBODY should have nukes.  If there was a way to strip the planet of all nukes, ours, theirs, the technology and the information to making them, I would love to see it happen.  Nukes stopped WWII, and no good since then has come of nuclear weapons.  UGH.  My long repressed inner hippie is clawing out.  BACK, FOUL IMPULSE, BACK!!

I believe Iran has the same right to nuclear power as anywhere else on earth.

And as AOG101 pointed out, there are other ways of producing nuclear power without creating by products that can be used as weapons. 
Besides, you are in conflict with your own argument.  One one hand, you argue that Iran as a nation should have the right to pursue a legitmate power program.  Then, on the other hand, you indicate your hatred of Israel, and that Iran should in fact have nuclear weapons.  What reserve unit did you say you were in?  The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade?

I thought Canadians, especially military members, were smarter than this.
I only hope there are some more enlightened CF members out there that can use their own grey matter rather than handing that over to politicians. As far as I recall, when you get your commission, you don't sign away your brain as well. Of course being an LT Zipper head oughtta know that.

As Franko is already sorting out your trolling, I will not react to that.  However, to suggest that the whole of the CF is unintelligent just because they don't agree with your idea of "Nukes for Iran" as a viable peace process is, if nothing else, wildly ironic.

As far as Israel goes, they have enough nukes to defend themselves.

Kay, just a heads up:  you don't really defend from nukes.  The last time this was tried was in the 80's, and it was a game called Missile Command from Atari.  Not using them is a good idea.  Not having them is better. 

IMO they shouldn't be in the middle east anyway, since they are a failed concoction of the UN and not a real country. I agree with the arabs on this. Move them to Northern Ontario or something and put them out of our misery.

Over and above the anti-Semitic flavour of this, there have been many other threads about Israel.  This one is about Iran.  Besides that, if you had beach front Mediterranean property, would you trade it in for outside of Sudbury?  I sincerely doubt it. 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 17thRecceSgt on May 03, 2006, 16:50:23
I'd more likely sign up to help defend Iran from the aggressors than join in any US led crap- if it happens.

I hope you didn't pick teams in school in Phys Ed did you?   Win many games? :blotto:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 19:09:17
Quote
If there was a way to strip the planet of all nukes, ours, theirs, the technology and the information to making them, I would love to see it happen.

Superman did it in "Superman 4-The Quest for Peace".  He threw all the Nuclear Weapons into the sun....  :o

BTW disagreeing with the existence of Israel in the middle of a bunch of Arab states is not being anti-semetic- it's being rational. And like I said before, Iran has agreed to "intrusive inspections" so any attempt to enrich uranium to the grades necessary for producing a bomb would be found out. They would be caught in the act long before they ever got enough nuclear weapons to threaten Israel. Let's face it Israel supposedly has at least 200 weapons at this point. Iran has a long way to go and it would be a 200-1 nuclear exchange if they started launching anything- gee who wins that one? That's another thing I take issue with- The urgency with which the US is pursuing this hedgemony and the lack of Diplomacy being evidenced. There is no attempt to talk at all here, they're pushing for war asap. The US refuses to have direct talks with the Iranian leadership- what does that tell you? They don't want a diplomatic solution. The fact is diplomacy is what's needed here, not threats. Threatening Iran is only making them more bold and getting the young population there on the governments side. There was talk in Iran of revolution before the West started threatening them. Now that the leadership can play innocent victim, the people are rallying to the cause of nuclear technology.

IMO the US and UN (we're a member) cannot start another conflict in that region without disasterous results. Remember China and Russia don't even want sanctions. This is not the time to start WW3 (there is no good time for that). I don't wanna glow in the dark........how bout you?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: scoutfinch on May 03, 2006, 19:17:57
I was being sarcastic. Are you saying you would support an attack on Iran, a democratically elected government, seeking nuclear tech just like the rest of us? Would you die or send your troops to possibly be killed for US foreign policy? Let's hear some debate. I wanna know if ANYONE would actually support this action.


Anyone who describes the Iranian government as being democratically elected has boldly indicated their ignorance. ::) ::)

Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest we leave Mr. CanuckTroop to stew in his own juices because he has proven that he knows nothing of which he so loudly pontificates.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: scoutfinch on May 03, 2006, 19:21:26
CanuckTroop:

Riddle me this:  why would a nation with the second largest natural gas reserves in the world (second only to Russia) require nuclear power?

Shake your head.  Hear anything?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: scoutfinch on May 03, 2006, 19:32:26

...The US refuses to have direct talks with the Iranian leadership- what does that tell you? They don't want a diplomatic solution. The fact is diplomacy is what's needed here, not threats.


The fact that the US is not talking to Iran is not surprising given the history between the two countries since 1953.  I commend for your reading The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth Pollack which goes into great detail regarding the long and tortuous diplomatic relationship between Iran and the US.  I suggest you read it (or atleast something) so as to minimize your ignorance on the subject. 


...There was talk in Iran of revolution before the West started threatening them. Now that the leadership can play innocent victim, the people are rallying to the cause of nuclear technology.


Wrong again.  There was not talk of revolution but of reform.  Unfortunately, Iranian reformists were effectively shut out of the last election when Khameni and Rafsanjani used the Guardians Council's power to vet all electorate candidates to all but eliminate the reformist bloc in the Seventh Majlis (2004).  But I am sure you already knew that right? ::)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: InterestedParty on May 03, 2006, 19:38:05
Quote
The urgency with which the US is pursuing this hedgemony


I'm equally concerned about US hedgemony - I don't know how the yanks managed to grow them that high, must be using the labor of the millions of illegal aliens foolishly surging into the Lair of the Great Satan. They should be surging into the "democratically elected" Islamic Republic of Iran instead.  ;)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: scoutfinch on May 03, 2006, 19:44:11
mdh:

This isn't so much directed at you as it is to CanuckTroop.... but it is spelled *hegemony*.  And since the end of the Cold War, the US has been the sole superpower (also referred to as a hyperpower) which by definition means it has achieved hegemony (or is a hegemon, however you wish to express it).
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: InterestedParty on May 03, 2006, 19:49:37
Quote
mdh:

This isn't so much directed at you as it is to CanuckTroop.... but it is spelled *hegemony*.  And since the end of the Cold War, the US has been the sole superpower (also referred to as a hyperpower) which by definition means it has achieved hegemony (or is a hegemon, however you wish to express it).

I know... I was trying to make a heavy-handed play on "hedge" - oh well time to go to the air force forum  :D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 19:54:58
CanuckTroop:

Riddle me this:  why would a nation with the second largest natural gas reserves in the world (second only to Russia) require nuclear power?

Shake your head.  Hear anything?

Does your house run on oil? That line is the biggest Neo "Con" load of crap. And in any case, Oil is finite- What do they do when it runs out?

Denying them nuclear power is denying them the right to use their resources and scientific expertise as they see fit. What would you say if GWB told us we couldn't have nuclear power? We should just tell all our nuclear scientists to forget everything they've learned and go study English so they can spell hegemon right. I don't think we'd agree to that, and neither should Iran.

So tell us, would you support military action against Iran if they choose to continue nuclear development and, therefore, the possiblity of war with Russian and China?


Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: scoutfinch on May 03, 2006, 19:58:51
I refuse to answer rhetorical questions that have been posed as an answer to a previous question.  It simply illustrates the weakness of your argument by demonstrating that you have broad brushed *theories* for which you have no factual background.

Kindly demonstrate with facts/sources where Iran has ever indicated that they want nuclear power because they fear the depletion of their oil or natural gas reserves.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 20:06:39
I refuse to answer rhetorical questions that have been posed as an answer to a previous question.  It simply illustrates the weakness of your argument by demonstrating that you have broad brushed *theories* for which you have no factual background.

Kindly demonstrate with facts/sources where Iran has ever indicated that they want nuclear power because they fear the depletion of their oil or natural gas reserves.

Thank you.

Not sure why I have to do your research for you- mabye you're just too lazy. Read this...it may help you attain enlighenment...

Quote
In August 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants." Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp, and was to have been completed in 1981.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program)

or mabye.....

http://www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20060418-101133-6101r (http://www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20060418-101133-6101r)

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 03, 2006, 20:09:07
So hard to keep ahead of the posts!!

mdh:
This isn't so much directed at you as it is to CanuckTroop.... but it is spelled *hegemony*.  And since the end of the Cold War, the US has been the sole superpower (also referred to as a hyperpower) which by definition means it has achieved hegemony (or is a hegemon, however you wish to express it).

I took it as a jab at the misspelling.  "hedge" being the key part, and the "growing them so tall" being the facetious comment.  It does loose something in the telling, though.

And like I said before, Iran has agreed to "intrusive inspections" so any attempt to enrich uranium to the grades necessary for producing a bomb would be found out. They would be caught in the act long before they ever got enough nuclear weapons to threaten Israel.

Were you to have taken the time and courtesy to read the  whole thread, one of the members who KNOWS what they are talking about indicated that by the time Iran had a sufficient amount of fissile matterial to run one reactor, they would have enough raw material to make several bombs.  Of course they would love to have inspectors watching.  That helps fuel the propaganda as to their nuclear threat.  Once they had the material they needed, they would punt the inspectors and crank out a bunch of bombs.  Have you ever heard of the concept of "hiding in plain view"?

Let's face it Israel supposedly has at least 200 weapons at this point. Iran has a long way to go and it would be a 200-1 nuclear exchange if they started launching anything- gee who wins that one? That's another thing I take issue with- The urgency with which the US is pursuing this hedgemony and the lack of Diplomacy being evidenced. There is no attempt to talk at all here, they're pushing for war asap. The US refuses to have direct talks with the Iranian leadership- what does that tell you? They don't want a diplomatic solution. The fact is diplomacy is what's needed here, not threats. Threatening Iran is only making them more bold and getting the young population there on the governments side.

Do you really think that if Iran has a nuclear device they will load it onto a sub orbital missile and launch it from a very identifiable ground position on a very traceable trajectory?  (Guess how it would be tracked...one guess....NORAD!! )It will be loaded onto a cargo container or in the back of a truck, and snuck into a city.  Then when it goes off, they won't claim responsibility, but there will be "leaks" that they in fact did it.  The MAD concept (and it is beyond stupidity to even suggest it) will not work when the one side does not have a sense of consequence.  If they WANT to die for their cause, then a nuke is the ultimate ride to glory. 
And BTW, the US isn't the only country that is interested in this scenario. 

IMO the US and UN (we're a member) cannot start another conflict in that region without disasterous results. Remember China and Russia don't even want sanctions. This is not the time to start WW3 (there is no good time for that). I don't wanna glow in the dark........how bout you?

Again with the nukes?!?!  Have you been in a time capsule since 1979?  All of the major powers have had nukes for decades and managed to get into lots of partisan dust ups without using them.  Russia is a shell of the nation it used to.  It couldn't possibly support a credible ground war at this point.  China is very concerned with getting all the Western money it can before it makes it's move.  They just like the idea of cheap oil and being chummy with a dark horse. 
Dude, you are so far out of your lane you better have off road tires on your computer. 
I think I'm just about done here.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: scoutfinch on May 03, 2006, 20:11:22
Okay... let me rephrase it so you understand... how about providing some reliable, scholarly, academic sources.  Wikipedia doesn't cut it. 

Moreover, try reading the sources upon which you do rely.  The UPI article you have cited stated that Iran claimed that there were *many obstacles to exploitation and transfer of fossil fuel in the country*.  It said nothing about the depletion of its reserves.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 03, 2006, 20:13:00
Further to my last, you still haven't spoken to why Iran could not have nuclear energy that would not produce weapons material by-products.  
And quoting the Shah is pretty hilarious.  That was a big "no good deed goes unpunished".
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: scoutfinch on May 03, 2006, 20:14:55
Zipperhead:

This guy is a wanker who does not know anything about the subject matter.  I am going to withdraw from the thread with the hope that she/he/it will get bored and go away so that the thread may eventually return to its original state, which made for an interesting read... as contrasted to the comedy of errors that CanuckTroop has turned it into.

Have a good one.

scout
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 20:17:49
Quote
China is very concerned with getting all the Western money it can before it makes it's move.  They just like the idea of cheap oil and being chummy with a dark horse.  
Dude, you are so far out of your lane you better have off road tires on your computer.  
I think I'm just about done here.

China has an economic weapon called United States treasury bills that if detonated, will cause more damage than a nuke going off in New York city. If the US decided to impose sanctions, and it appears that's the resolution that they're trying to get passed, they may well decide to use it. The fact is China now has TOO MUCH US money in their Forex reserves and want to dump it. The US is a sinking ship and pretty soon China will detach itself from the titanic. Then we'll see how much they like western money.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 20:19:15
Zipperhead:

This guy is a wanker who does not know anything about the subject matter.  I am going to withdraw from the thread with the hope that she/he/it will get bored and go away so that the thread may eventually return to its original state, which made for an interesting read... as contrasted to the comedy of errors that CanuckTroop has turned it into.

Have a good one.

scout

Don't hit your *** on the way out!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on May 03, 2006, 20:21:14
China has an economic weapon called United States treasury bills that if detonated, will cause more damage than a nuke going off in New York city. If the US decided to impose sanctions, and it appears that's the resolution that they're trying to get passed, they may well decide to use it. The fact is China now has TOO MUCH US money in their Forex reserves and want to dump it. The US is a sinking ship and pretty soon China will detach itself from the titanic. Then we'll see how much they like western money.

 :o

You were sleeping in economics class weren't you ?

I was trying hard to stay away from this thread since you chimed in but now......you have realy slipped off the deep end.

Don't hit your *** on the way out!

Your attitude on this site will not win you any points...i fully expect " banned" to be besides your name by the end of the night
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 20:25:01
Further to my last, you still haven't spoken to why Iran could not have nuclear energy that would not produce weapons material by-products.  
And quoting the Shah is pretty hilarious.  That was a big "no good deed goes unpunished".


Since you seem to know so much about nuclear power, how about the fact that you need 90% U235 to produce a nuclear weapon? Iran has just enriched it to 5%....bit of a difference math major. I've already spoken to your ignorant statement. Iran has said they will allow "intrusive inspections". You can't have a nuclear reactor producing 90% enriched uranium and not have the inspectors know about it......how do you think they know that Iran has enriched to 5%? THE INSPECTORS. I think it's time you reload bud cuz you're running outta ammo.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 20:30:20
:o

You were sleeping in economics class weren't you ?

I was trying hard to stay away from this thread since you chimed in but now......you have realy slipped off the deep end.

Your attitude on this site will not win you any points...i fully expect " banned" to be besides your name by the end of the night

Please explain economics to me. My BCom is apparently not sufficient to discuss foreign debt instruments. And how should I be banned, after he 's calling me a wanker. If I get banned for that, then it only proves my point that differing opinions are not allowed on this site. Try and be more open minded instead of launching emotional attacks.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: scoutfinch on May 03, 2006, 20:32:21
SHE called you a wanker, not he.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 20:34:54
SHE called you a wanker, not he.

Thanks for the update.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on May 03, 2006, 20:37:17
Please explain economics to me. My BCom is apparently not sufficient to discuss foreign debt instruments. And how should I be banned, after he 's calling me a wanker. If I get banned for that, then it only proves my point that differing opinions are not allowed on this site. Try and be more open minded instead of launching emotional attacks.

Oh am i ever sorry i said anything......he has loonieversity !!  Can you spell big words like marmellade and hellamachopter too ?

 ::)

Didnt know they had nuclear weapons classes for Bcom........

I guess my political science education will be enough to shut you up about Iranian politics then ?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: scoutfinch on May 03, 2006, 20:39:39
aesop081:

She/He/It isn't worth the effort.

scout
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on May 03, 2006, 20:41:37
aesop081:

She/He/It isn't worth the effort.

scout

Ack

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 20:44:22
Oh am i ever sorry i said anything......he has loonieversity !!  Can you spell big words like marmellade and hellamachopter too ?

 ::)

Didnt know they had nuclear weapons classes for Bcom........

I guess my political science education will be enough to shut you up about Iranian politics then ?

Not if all you are capable of is random insults without any supporting evidence.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: AOG101 on May 03, 2006, 20:50:33
Ack


Don't feel bad ;) I have a masters in science and a masters in engineering,And I don't know what the h*ll's going on.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 03, 2006, 22:28:41
Zipperhead:

This guy is a wanker who does not know anything about the subject matter.  I am going to withdraw from the thread with the hope that she/he/it will get bored and go away so that the thread may eventually return to its original state, which made for an interesting read... as contrasted to the comedy of errors that CanuckTroop has turned it into.

Have a good one.

scout

Good call.  I just keep hoping it would get back to being an informed thread, as opposed to a Mike Moore wanna be hijacking what was an interesting topic with things so stupid and untenable, it is hard to even know where to start to shoot them down.  Have you noticed the conspiracy child's tendency to only focus on semantics and rhetoric, though?  Another tool that can't answer the hard questions, or come up with reality based solutions. 
I'm sure you are a huge hit with the hairy armpit girls at your local Starbucks, CT. 

ZHC, out.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 17thRecceSgt on May 03, 2006, 22:37:58
You know...if this was the 1800's we would have already figured him for a witch and would be getting the wood ready for the burning at the stake by now...unless of course...he weighed the same as...A DUCK!

 :blotto:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 03, 2006, 22:57:06
Good call.  I just keep hoping it would get back to being an informed thread, as opposed to a Mike Moore wanna be hijacking what was an interesting topic with things so stupid and untenable, it is hard to even know where to start to shoot them down.  Have you noticed the conspiracy child's tendency to only focus on semantics and rhetoric, though?  Another tool that can't answer the hard questions, or come up with reality based solutions. 
I'm sure you are a huge hit with the hairy armpit girls at your local Starbucks, CT. 

ZHC, out.

You hot boxing your armor again cabbie? What have I said that is remotely Mike Moorish? or conspiracy related? You have no argument- all you have is BS. I said give Iran nuclear power- it's their right. That's it. It's my opinion. How do you back an opinion with FACTS. There is no Reuters article that says "Iran should be allowed to have Nuclear technology just like every other sovereign nation" for me to quote. So once again, what is so stupid, or untenable, about my OPINION? Facts please.

Let me know when you're done flippin' burgers at Mcdicks.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on May 03, 2006, 23:25:56


Let me know when you're done flippin' burgers at Mcdicks.



THAT...from a guy demanding facts and deploring insults  ::)

At least when i throw insults its because i dont expect anything else in return...........Thats because i'm edumacated

Anyways , i'm just having fun at your expense and sugest that you add a Poli Sci degree or an MA in International relations to your Bcom....looking at things stricly from an economics point of view ( i am refering to your China bit) is missing half the picture and ignoring reality ( symptomatic of a large portion of university geeks).

Good day to you
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on May 03, 2006, 23:35:40
The mark of a good tanker is to know when intimate support is required.  Let's see where Iran stands on cooperation, shall we?

Quote
the Agency has repeatedly requested Iran to provide additional information on certain issues related to its enrichment programme. Iran declined to discuss these matters at the 12–14 February 2006 meeting in Tehran referred to in paragraph 6 of GOV/2006/15 on the grounds that, in its view, they were not within the scope of the Safeguards Agreement. Iran reasserted this position in a meeting which took place with Agency inspectors in Tehran on 8 April 2006.

Quote
The implementation of the Additional Protocol and Iran’s full cooperation in this regard are essential for the Agency be able to provide the required assurance concerning the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.

Quote
Iran has also said that it is unable to provide any documentation or other information about the meetings that led to its acquisition of 500 sets of P-1 centrifuge components in the mid-1990s. The Agency is still awaiting clarification of the dates and contents of the shipments containing those components.

Quote
On 10 April 2006, the Agency met with Iranian officials to seek further explanations concerning the inconsistencies identified in that analysis.  Following that meeting, in a letter dated 17 April 2006, Iran reaffirmed its previous explanations of the inconsistencies. In the light of the Agency’s findings, the Agency cannot exclude the possibility —
notwithstanding the explanations provided by Iran — that the plutonium analysed by the Agency was derived from source(s) other than the ones declared by Iran.

Quote
A.6. Voluntary Implementation of the Additional Protocol
23. Since 5 February 2006, Iran has not been implementing the provisions of its Additional Protocol.

Quote
Although Iran agreed to provide further clarifications in relation to efforts to procure balancing machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, the Agency has yet to receive such clarifications. Further access to the procured equipment is necessary for environmental sampling. Iran has continued to decline requests by the Agency to interview the other former Head of the PHRC.

Quote
27. As previously reported, the Deputy Director General for the Department of Safeguards met with Iranian authorities in February 2006 to discuss alleged studies related to the so-called Green Salt Project, to high explosives testing and to the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, all of which could have a military nuclear dimension and which appear to have administrative interconnections.

28. As indicated in GOV/2006/15, Iran stated that the allegations with regard to the Green Salt Project “are based on false and fabricated documents so they were baseless,” and that neither such a project nor such studies exist or had existed. Iran stated that all national efforts had been devoted to the UCF project, and that it would not make sense to develop indigenous capabilities to produce UF4 when such technology had already been acquired from abroad. However, according to information provided earlier by Iran, the company alleged to have been associated with the Green Salt Project had been involved in procurement for UCF and in the design and construction of the Gchine uranium ore processing plant.

29. The Agency is assessing the information provided by Iran during these discussions concerning the Green Salt Project, as well as other information available to it. However, Iran has yet to address the other topics of high explosives testing and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle.

Quote
However, gaps remain in the Agency’s knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran’s centrifuge programme. Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency’s knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.

Source:  Board of Governors, International Atomic Energy Agency, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, GOV/2006/27, 28 April 2006  (gotta love primary sources)

So, we have a state, led by Islamic extremists, calling for the destruction of a neighbouring state, interfering in several others, squashing human rights (including participation in the torture and murder of a Canadian citizen) and actively pursuing an nuclear weapons programme and this is what passes (in the opinion of some) for cooperation?

Just sayin'... ::)

TR, jockeying now...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 17thRecceSgt on May 03, 2006, 23:44:42
OKay, its obvious that he DOESN'T weigh the same as a duck... :blotto:

This thread was VERY interesting and informative to me about something I know very little about quite honestly...and now...CT has turned it into a kindergarten class argument.   I did get some chuckles out of it though

Oh am i ever sorry i said anything......he has loonieversity !!  Can you spell big words like marmellade and hellamachopter too ?


I laugh EVERY time I read that one!   :rofl:

What did they do to someone if they didn't weigh the same as a duck?????    ;D

CanuukTroop,

1 question.  What is your national origin (i.e. where are you/your family from...I am guessing....Iran??)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 03, 2006, 23:56:55
1 question.  What is your national origin (i.e. where are you/your family from...I am guessing....Iran??)

No way.  I'm betting multi generation white bread Canadian, as WASP as they come.  Only that demographic can spawn this calibre of ungrateful, narrow minded malfeasant who thinks he is owed everything for having sacrificed nothing.  Picture:  dyed jet black hair feathered across face, multiple piercings, 5'7", 132 lbs with a Phish concert shirt and $300 pre-ripped/stained/punctured Guess Jeans mock combat pants with huge wallet chain, studded wrist bands and skin so pale from lack of sun it appears as the background of the post editor.  Perma scowl and only reaction to confrontation in person; a rolling of eyes up and way over to the side, and a "PFFFF, whatever" comment, punctuated by a stop sign hand gesture at roughly waist level.
Course, I could be way off... :P
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on May 04, 2006, 00:01:00
Maybe he is from here....locals here i call CAPE



Citizens Against Practicaly Everything
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CanuckTroop on May 04, 2006, 00:14:10
The mark of a good tanker is to know when intimate support is required.  Let's see where Iran stands on cooperation, shall we?

Source:  Board of Governors, International Atomic Energy Agency, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, GOV/2006/27, 28 April 2006  (gotta love primary sources)

So, we have a state, led by Islamic extremists, calling for the destruction of a neighbouring state, interfering in several others, squashing human rights (including participation in the torture and murder of a Canadian citizen) and actively pursuing an nuclear weapons programme and this is what passes (in the opinion of some) for cooperation?

Just sayin'... ::)


TR, jockeying now...

UNBELIEVABLE!!! Someone actually posted useful information.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on May 04, 2006, 00:16:21
UNBELIEVABLE!!! Someone actually posted useful information.

Oh just go away......... You and Pike can have a "meeting of the minds"
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 04, 2006, 00:17:40
UNBELIEVABLE!!! Someone actually posted useful information.

BELEIVABLE!!!  You couldn't make a useful comment on the facts.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 17thRecceSgt on May 04, 2006, 00:27:00
Teddy Ruxpin has just brought this back within our boundaries...that was good info.  So..its basically them saying "no no we aren't doing anything" while they are doing something.  And the "world" or parts of it aren't buying it.  And will eventually act on it.  So they are figuring out now...how they are going to act on it.  Got it.  Bugout kit is packed.   :o
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 17thRecceSgt on May 04, 2006, 00:31:34
oh ya...don't forget your CBRN kit!   :warstory:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Nerf herder on May 04, 2006, 00:32:44
Seeing as this thread has now degraded into name calling for at least the past 6 posts due to someone's inability to put forward hard evidence to backup his claim...I'm locking this one up.

If someone deems it nessisary to add something worthwhile to the real topic .....wait out for 24 hrs, I'll open it then.

Quote
And how should I be banned, after he 's calling me a wanker. If I get banned for that, then it only proves my point that differing opinions are not allowed on this site. Try and be more open minded instead of launching emotional attacks.


(http://www.msprotege.com/members/LinuxRacr/smiles/potkettle.gif)
Hmmmm.... pot meet kettle.


Quote
Don't hit your *** on the way out!

Oh...and this little jab just earned you a Verbal.


Regards
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: xenobard on May 04, 2006, 07:17:32
I'm new to this forum (first post) - I'll introduce myself: I'm a civilian, Canadian, 28 single male, west coast guy, uni-grad, traveled in Asia off and on for 5 years or so.  I'm left-leaning in many regards.

Now, I'd like to say that I very much admire all of your decision to join the CF and stand up for freedom - that which I must admit too many of us Canadians take for granted.  Hats off to all of you stationed in Afghanistan and elsewhere. 

Now to Iran and the world situation: Personally, I'm frightened - frightened for what might soon become world war 3.  Come to think of it, though, I've been frightened of just that since as long as I can remember.  Vaguely, I recall looking at the world map as a kid and being so fearful of that huge menacing U.S.S.R.  Growing up, there had always been this underlying sense that a nuclear war could flare up at any moment - like a constant nagging stress, something I couldn't really put my finger on or understand but was always there.

Then the late 80's - early 90's rolled along and the Eastern European communist blocks started to unravel.  Soon thereafter that huge Soviet monster suddenly kealed over.  We all had a brief repose in those 90's as most of us recall: times were generally good and the world seemed it was finally coming together quite well.

In hindsight, we could say it was the calm before the desert storm: 911, the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..

We were left in shock, many of us still are, I think, and we don't know what to make of all that's going on.  I sure don't.  Our leaders have asked us to trust them and we've gone along with it so far.

Now, will our kids grow up looking at a map with fear in their eyes?  Which countries will they be looking at?  Iran?  North Korea? Our own, Canada?  Will they grow up afraid of getting on a bus in their home town?

We had our lingering constant vague fear of some kind of world war 3 with the U.S.S.R..  If the terrorists succeed in their plan, our kids will have it far worse than we ever did. 

Let's not forget what we're fighting for, regardless of what our leaders say or do.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 04, 2006, 16:56:56
Xeno, welcome to the board. 
I was also one who grew up worried about Ivan the Red Commie Dog.  It was my original motivation to sign up with the Reserves when I was 17, so I could have some good training before the draft (I was young, and easily excitable.  Now I'm not young). 
That nice in between time of which you speak was just that--nice.  While we were watching Ghost Busters and listening to Depeche Mode, in another part of the planet a bunch of trained guys that had a heap of weapons looked around and said "this is our house to have fun in" and started planning.  Think of it like getting to the gym.  If you go regularly, you maintain your shape and can enjoy eating whatever you want.  However, if you enjoy yourself for a decade, and never do anything strenuous, then all of a sudden you have a problem (fat) and it is that much harder to get rid of than if you had taken care of business all along.  We were so caught up with the Soviets, and so relieved when the Wall came down, everyone (including myself) said "phew!  Maybe we will see something like world peace in our lifetimes".  And we rested, drank, and got politically "fat", ignoring a critical part of the world.  Hindsight is 20-20, but now that we realize what has transpired while we were kicking back, and it is going to be harder to solve the problems than if we had been on top of them from the get-go. 
Again, welcome.  It will be refreshing to have someone from the left coast who has an appreciation for the CF.   :cdn:
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Nerf herder on May 04, 2006, 23:02:54
Opened for buisness.

Now that everyone has cooled off, keep the thread on topic.

Any unwarrented personal attacks from here on out will be dealt with.

Regards
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Otto Fest on May 04, 2006, 23:16:58
Although Iran may not have nukes (deliverable) for 10 years, is it unavoidable that we become adversarial?  Democracies have trusted each other as employment is the kiss of death; even China has not used them.  Is it simply that Iran is a non-elected Theocracy and therefore not really accountable to its own people?

I would like to think that the internet and Iran's youthful population (30 million out of 60 million under 25 years) will promote democracy.  Perhaps I'm being too optimistic. How close is Iran to a democratic government?

"Victory is not final, Failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that matters" - Winston Churchill
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: AOG101 on May 05, 2006, 00:08:31
Although Iran may not have nukes (deliverable) for 10 years, is it unavoidable that we become adversarial?  Democracies have trusted each other as employment is the kiss of death; even China has not used them. 
This is old ,so not a big thing anymore, when we were developing one of the missiles for the chinese,One asked me with a large grin on his face.Will it  reach Taiwan?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on May 05, 2006, 00:19:27
From my reading on the subject (relatively second hand) Iran is a potential target for the "Purple Finger" strategy. The median age of the Iranian population is @ 24 years old, all they have ever known is the Islamic Republic. On the other hand, the resurgence of the Revolutionary Guard and religious police to enforce various religious edicts, banning of "western" music, television, books, TV and films and attempts to monitor or censor the Internet (they ought to talk to their pals in China about that) would suggest the Theocracy who make up the Supreme leader and Council of Guardians are rather worried that their brand of Islamic society isn't very popular.

Unfortunately, rather than form "Orange Power" or "Cedar Revolution" type mass demonstrations to express displeasure with the government, Iranians seem to have withdrawn into a sort of sullen passivity (as expressed by the low turnouts for the last elections. After all, if the only candidates who can run are hand picked by the Council of Guardians, why bother). Of course I can't really sit here and blame them, a protesting crowd is likely to be met with gunfire from the Revolutionary Guardsmen, for a Persian replay of Tienanmen Square.

There does not seem to be a well organized opposition or Government in Exile which could be tapped to create a nucleus for a real revolution (although I could be wrong about this), so if direct action needs to be taken, then a decapitating head shot at the Theocracy and Revolutionary Guard is a "must", once they have been crippled the Iranian people will be less constrained by fear and oppression and can finish the job. Let them find the hidden centrifuge cascades and destroy them (or we can offer to buy the centrifuges and contents for a good sum).

Just as a BTW, for the non nuclearly enlightened, mildly enriched uranium is good for running reactors, and the reactors supply irradiated fuel rods which are reprocessed for Plutonium, which doesn't need enriching. While all fission reactors produce Plutonium, natural Uranium reactors (i.e. CANDU) produce far less. I would bet a lot of money that the Iranians are working on some sort of "breeder" reactor which pumps out loads of Plutonium, which isn't very good for producing nuclear energy in a slow, controlled reaction, but excellent for the very rapid (on the order of milliseconds) uncontrolled type.

edit for spelling
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: AOG101 on May 05, 2006, 00:29:21
I may be wrong but wasn't the Bushehr reactor,capable?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: 17thRecceSgt on May 05, 2006, 00:32:36
Thanks Franko...this thread was "learnin'" me lots of stuff I had no insight on.  Just went off the boundaries of the trace.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Nerf herder on May 05, 2006, 11:02:16
Thanks Franko...this thread was "learnin'" me lots of stuff I had no insight on.  Just went off the boundaries of the trace.

No problem....it happens from time to time, hence the 24 hr lock.

Regards
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: xenobard on May 05, 2006, 23:22:26
Zipper,

Are you in the CF now?  I would be interested in hearing what you and other members of the CF think about the possibility of a war with Iran.  From what I've read in prior posts on this topic, it seems that many think that a war with Iran would not pose too much a problem other than the occasional terrorist attack domestically, a few torpedos, and maybe a period of guerrilla resistance.

But from the civilian's point of view, a terrorist attack on domestic soil is rather frightening. If Iran proved it was capable of successfully detonating / releasing some sort of WMD on American or Canadian soil, I think the civilian population would be spilt as to whether or not to get into a tussle with Iran.  If we knew that Iran could in theory kill millions of civilians, I suspect we'd be willing to leave Iran well enough alone, and be content to live with a cold-war scenario reminicent of the one we had with 'Ivan the Red Commie Dog' as you say, zipper. 

That being said, if Iran attacked with a WMD, we'd rally behind the CF in an all-out declaration of war.  Hell, I'd even say bring on the draft in that case.  I'd go.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: paracowboy on May 06, 2006, 00:10:48
If Iran proved it was capable of successfully detonating / releasing some sort of WMD on American or Canadian soil, I think the civilian population would be spilt as to whether or not to get into a tussle with Iran.  If we knew that Iran could in theory kill millions of civilians, I suspect we'd be willing to leave Iran well enough alone, and be content to live with a cold-war scenario reminicent of the one we had with 'Ivan the Red Commie Dog' as you say, zipper. 
I disagree. I have more faith in our citizen's courage. I do not believe that Canadian citizens would ever bow down to bullies. We have never done so before, and I doubt that some Newfie fisherman, BC logger, Prairie farm boy, or Ontario city boy would tolerate ANYONE threatening, let alone attacking, their family.

When 911 happened, recruits flocked in. Canadians know what is Right, and will fight for it. And they will never bow to a tyrant, or capitulate to a terrorist.

We're a quiet people, but there is nothing more scary than a quiet man who finally loses his temper. And there is no way to stop a Good man who knows he is Right, and will not quit.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Armymatters on May 06, 2006, 03:44:56
The thing is with Iran, Ahmadinjad, the president really has no real power on foreign or security policy, and in fact, the Iranian government and the ruling mulahs have actually moved to reduce the amount of power he wields because frankly, he has become a liability to the Iranian regime, as he is constantly shooting himself in the feet or putting his foot in the mouth. They did this by placing the former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in a position overseeing him, as Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran. His fiery rhetoric is not endearing him to the leaders of Iran, indeed it is becoming more and more apparent he is little more than a minor player in Iran, who is seeking to establish a base of support to observers of Iranian politics.

To do a comparison between Iran and say, the United States, the opposite number of the American President in Iran is actually the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. Khameini has final say on all matters of security and foreign policy — including and especially the nuclear issue — although he typically abides by the consensus of the National Security Council. The Council is led by Ali Larijani, appointed by and answerable to the Supreme Leader, and a man who also ran for president against Ahmadinejad.

What is of note is that it is Larijani (who is seen as a moderate compared to Ahmadinejad) rather than Ahmadinejad who is managing the negotiations over the nuclear program. Ahmadinejad has only one vote — out of around a dozen — on the Security Council. So as much as he rattles his metaphorical saber at the West, the President is in no position to act on any of this threats. He is in short, taking pot shots at the West with blanks; makes a whole lot of noise, but does zip. He has to lobby for his position within a power structure in which his is not the dominant voice. And while Ahmadinejad thunders against compromise, Larijani and other elements of the regime have made clear that Iran still seeks a deal, preferably in direct face-to-face talks with Washington.

Also important is that while Ahmadinejad has been rattling his saber against the West, the true leaders of Iran that acutally have any real power in Iran, namely, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has acutally issued a fatwa on August 9, 2005 declaring nuclear weapons to be forbidden under Islam, and as such, the production, stockpiling and use of such weapons are against Islam.

Right now, I am inclided to believe Iran in that they sincerely do not wish to seek nuclear weaponry and right now, the information from the IAEA inspections and reports back that position up. The analysis of the facts known indicate that there is no military nuclear activity, and no nuclear weapons program. Where there's smoke, there's usually a fire; right now we don't have any smoke, so therefore we don't have any fire. All I am inclined to do is to at least keep Iran under watch under the provisions of the NPT, and the issue is pretty much closed. If there is any real, solid evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and/or are developing them, then yes, do something about it. In short, I don't freaking care about what Ahmadinejad is spouting off; I am only interested in what Iran is actually doing. Actions speak louder than words.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: xenobard on May 06, 2006, 05:27:46
Certainly many Canadians would be - and indeed now are - willing and ready to join the fight for what is right.  Many others, on the otherhand, are still very quiet, at least for now.  This quietness is multifaceted: in many cases it is a 'wait and see' quietness, in others it is an apathetic quietness, in others it is a temper-brooding quietness, in others it is a tentative quietness.  We're Canadian, and so pride ourselves in not making decisions too quickly, we pride ourselves in what we don't say rather than what we say; and we take pride in our reserve.  I agree that it is a sign of hidden strength, indeed.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 06, 2006, 12:10:17
Xeno
I am on the supplementary reserve list for the Reserves.  That is kind of like being on the bench in sports.  I have put in my papers to go from supp Reserve to active Reserve [although, for how long it is taking, the process must be horribly difficult  ::) ]
If a terrorist strike is going to happen in this country, it will happen.  The terrorists are well established here, and it is a question of not "if" but "when".  Fear of a strike is what the terrorists are hoping for (insert map of France:  here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html)

We must take the fight to them.  Have you ever known anyone who had to spray for cockroaches?  You can spray a room in a house, but the pesky buggers just go to another room and wait out.  Same deal with terrorists.  We have to go where they are, corner them, and exterminate them before they can do more damage.  They of course have the option of joining the 20th century and avoiding all that burdensome high speed lead poisoning if they choose to.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 06, 2006, 16:34:09
Things could be pretty unsettling if this NY Times story is reliable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/washington/07goss.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=9bad9826e017cfd2&ex=1147579200

Excerpts:
'...
But an array of former intelligence officials said the holes in American knowledge are numerous.

"Whenever the C.I.A. says 5 to 10 years, that means they don't know," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Iran specialist in the clandestine service of the C.I.A. He said French and Israeli experts believe an Iranian bomb may be as little as one to three years off.

Flynt L. Leverett, a former C.I.A. analyst now at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said American military planners clearly lack the detailed data needed to be able to cripple the Iranian nuclear program with air strikes should such a step be ordered.

"It's likely there are facilities we don't know about," Mr. Leverett said. "And if we knocked out the facilities we do know about, we wouldn't really know how much we'd set back their nuclear program."..'

This is especially disturbing--how did the Iranians learn it?

'The National Security Agency's efforts to intercept Iranian government communications were hampered in the last two years because Iran learned that the United States had broken its codes and changed them. Satellite photography has provided detailed images of suspected nuclear facilities, but such photographs leave many unanswered questions. Unmanned aerial vehicles are flown into Iran to sniff for gases that would provide clues to nuclear processing, former intelligence officials said.

But such technology cannot remedy Americans' ignorance of Persian language and Iranian culture, said Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland, where some intelligence officers will begin immersion language classes this summer. Just 300 to 400 university students nationwide are studying Persian, he estimated, and most of those will drop out before becoming fluent...'

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: xenobard on May 06, 2006, 21:58:16
I have to admi that I was quite surprised by the latest news headlines public opinion poll on our deployment in Afghanistan.  According to

CTV news May 06,

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060506/conservative_poll_060506/20060506?hub=TopStories (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060506/conservative_poll_060506/20060506?hub=TopStories)

Excerpts:
"The poll, which was conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail, found 54 per cent of Canadians are against the deployment of troops. Of those, 23 per cent are strongly opposed -- an increase of eight percentage points from the previous survey."

"The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."

I don't think support is waning because we have lost faith in the mission.  In fact, Canadians understand that what we are doing there is necessary and important.   What I think we just have a lot of trouble with, however, is the casualties. 

Just hoped you all knew that Canada DOES support what the CF is doing there, but is just now coming to grips with the realities of combat, I think.  This poll can't really be considered an acurate indication of how Canadians really think.

What does this have to do with Iran?  Well, it ties in to what I said in my previous post about how we'd be split on whether to get involved with Iran, again not because we are spineless, not because we aren't willing to stand up for what's right, but because we just care about our soldiers too much to see them getting hurt and all that.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: paracowboy on May 06, 2006, 22:58:05
Quote
I have no faith in the media’s “polls”.

Who were asked?
Where do they live?
What demographics were approached?
What questions were asked?
How were the questions phrased?
Were they leading questions?
Was Occam’s Razor employed?
Is it an on-line poll where-in people can make several replies?
 
And on, and on…
a great quote by a brilliant man.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: George Wallace on May 06, 2006, 23:00:09
Could it have been a cowboy who jumps outa airplanes?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 07, 2006, 00:49:07
To read the news articles one must conclude that the CIA is a bumbling inept organization and that the US due to the lack of intelligence cannot possibly take military action against Iran. If we want to lull the Iranian's into a false sense of security the news media is doing a great job of disinformation.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Armymatters on May 07, 2006, 04:44:49
To read the news articles one must conclude that the CIA is a bumbling inept organization and that the US due to the lack of intelligence cannot possibly take military action against Iran. If we want to lull the Iranian's into a false sense of security the news media is doing a great job of disinformation.

I am inclinded to say that there is no chance that the US can acutally shut down all of the nuclear sites by force unless the US goes in with ground troops. Air strikes won't cut it, some of the facilities are deeply burried and well fortified, which will more than easily take a normal bunker buster, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons are a public relations and ecological nightmare. Sure, we can probally bomb the enterance to these facilities with conventional weapons, but it will be only a matter of time before the Iranians manage to clear away the enterances and resume production. That if we know ALL of the facilities, it would be a shame to miss one.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on May 07, 2006, 08:20:24
People need to get their heads outta their asses. If Israel can have nuclear weapons, then Iran should also be able to have nuclear weapons to balance things out. GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD (mutually assured destruction)


At least Isreal has a 21 century mentality with matching technology, Iran and similar places are still thinking 13th century mentality, and with modern technology (nuclear wpns) that spells disaster, plus the fact that certain extremists within their governments (look what the political leader of Iran has recently publically stated about Israel for example), would love not only to use such weapons on the USA and Israel, but view the entire western world as enemies, including Canada (look what ratbags have been arrested there already), and would just as soon vapourise you just as much as The Great Satan south of the 49th.

Just who's side are you on anyway?

Theirs or a professional troller?

Your points are meaningless, and not well thought. I have read every post of yours in this thread, and its very one sided. I sniff a hidden agenda?


Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: cobbler on May 07, 2006, 09:32:33
Quote
People need to get their heads outta their asses. If Israel can have nuclear weapons, then Iran should also be able to have nuclear weapons to balance things out. GIVE IRAN THE BOMB FOR PEACE THROUGH MAD (mutually assured destruction)

But the problem is Iran doesn't want nukes for MAD. It wants nukes to do in one day what Hitler tried to do for 12 years.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: George Wallace on May 07, 2006, 12:29:54
I am inclinded to say that there is no chance that the US can acutally shut down all of the nuclear sites by force unless the US goes in with ground troops. Air strikes won't cut it, some of the facilities are deeply burried and well fortified, which will more than easily take a normal bunker buster, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons are a public relations and ecological nightmare. Sure, we can probally bomb the enterance to these facilities with conventional weapons, but it will be only a matter of time before the Iranians manage to clear away the enterances and resume production. That if we know ALL of the facilities, it would be a shame to miss one.

After all the quotes you have given in other threads and the 'research' you have done, this post catches me by surprise.  You really don't have any comprehension of the capabilities that the US and NATO Forces have available to them do you?  I am sure that it would be a relatively simple matter these days to close down the entrances, and then keep closing them down as they are in the process of being reopened.  Those capabilities have been demonstrated already in previous offensives.  Today we also have Thermobaric munitions, which would preclude the use of nuclear weapons.  I wouldn't overlook the possiblilities that lay out there, should the requirement arise for actions to be taken against a hostile Iran. 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on May 08, 2006, 11:38:09
Armymatters, look up the concept of "economy of effort".

Does it make sense for the Coalition to attempt to locate and destroy hundreds or potentially thousands of potential sites associated with the dispersion and hardening of the nuclear weapons program, or would the same effect be achieved by decapitating a few hundred sites associated with the Ruling council and Revolutionary Guard? What about messing up the Iranian financial system? Would the technical staffs be very motivated without pay or the ability to buy groceries? (Or would the various French, Russian and Chinese companies eager to do business in Iran be so gung ho if they are no longer getting paid?). What about the power grid? Centrifuges require a lot of energy to run, and they are not powered by old Dodge Charger 440 Hemi engines. (This would also affect Iran's ability to pump and distribute oil as well, a big negative for their customers like China). What about beaming radio programs and delivering iPODs with pro democracy messages, uncensored news content and assurances of our love and support to the Iranian people?

Think outside the box. The answer, when it comes, will surprise lots of people.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 08, 2006, 15:55:42
Think outside the box. The answer, when it comes, will surprise lots of people.

So, deliver Ronald McDonald to them to be stoned in a courtyard, in order to satisfy Jihad?   :o

No?  Something else?

 ;)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on May 08, 2006, 16:36:54
So, deliver Ronald McDonald to them to be stoned in a courtyard, in order to satisfy Jihad?   :o

No?  Something else?

 ;)

Not the Happy Meal Box!  :o
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on May 08, 2006, 17:49:26
We'll have to wait until Strategic Council posts the full detailed report on their website I suppose.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: xenobard on May 10, 2006, 06:09:01
Certainly, coalition forces have the military capability to knock out even the most hardened and deepest of WMD installations with enough bomber sorties.  The problem is that there would be no way of knowing whether or not we'd destroyed them all. 

Without a fully entrenched intelligence network inside Iran - of which there apparently isn't at the moment - we'd simply never know if it was mission accomplished.

Let's say coalition bombing runs did in fact take out 99/100 Iranian WMD installations; the one we didn't know about would produce enough plutonium for the bomb; and within 5 years they'd have a nuke anyway.  Now, having been pummelled by the coalition previously, wouldn't Iran have all the more desire - and perhaps even justification in certain eyes of certain members of the international stage - to actually use their precious nuke?  Therefore, prior to any airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, we'd have to make sure we weren't going to miss any of them.

But can we ever be 100% sure we'll be safe from a WMD attack, even with good intelligence inside Iran, and even after successfully destroying Iran's WMD facilities?  I don't think so.  WMD weapon technology and components from other countries - Pakistan, N. Korea, China, Russia, Israel, Libya, or even western countries, etc. - might find their way onto the black market and eventually be assembled and used by terrorists anyway.

The only thing we can really do in my honest opinion is to continue with coalition reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  By doing so, we can show people throughout the region that the west is there to help improve people's lives, not kill them.  If successful in this regard, the young angry men that seem to abound throughout the region will be far less likely to join Al Queda and will most likely just end up settling down, working hard at the jobs they manage to get, and raising good happy children.

WMDs will only be more plentiful and more easily come by in the future.  So, in my opinion, the best we can do is continue helping people in the region.  It's the only sure way to know there'll be fewer terrorists who'd want to use WMDs against us tommorow.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 14, 2006, 04:14:00
If you are determined to live in a place where wishful thinking will carry the day, perhaps you could buy a house in Disney World? 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: xenobard on May 14, 2006, 05:04:31
Are you saying that in your opinion such a reconstruction / humanitarian mission is not feasible? 

I stand by my opinion that proving the west's benevolent intentions in the region to the citizens of the region is tantamount.  If coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were not only to provide security but also facilitate the avergage person's ability to maintain their homes with electricity and clean running water, food, health care, etc., it would have a spill-over effect, proving to the Iranian people next door that we are not the "Big Red Satan" we are claimed to be.  If such were to occur, other measures such as propaganda, internet freedom initiatives, media broadcasts - all of which would subtly bolster support for moderate political forces inside Iran - might have more of an effect in the long term than surgical strikes.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: TCBF on May 14, 2006, 06:11:13
I don't see a big problem with Iran 'having' the bomb.  If they want to squander vast sums on the development  of high maintenance warheads and delivery systems - fine.  It would, however, be cheaper and faster just to buy some of the old Soviet stuff, if all you wanted was a 'terror' device.  So, obviously, all of this hype is just that.

There are a lot of practical issues that point towards the declaration of an INTENT to develop nukes being far more of a domestic and foriegn policy tool than the actual ACQUISITION and OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY of nukes.  Nukes, in all aspects, are expensive and suck up a lot of budget. If you want to just get people mad at you, a stolen Arty Shell or MIRV warhead is fine.  Building your own SS-18 with a 20 megaton RV is another matter.

What they need to stay in power is another war.  Let's not give it to them.

Tom
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: paracowboy on May 14, 2006, 10:27:21
If you are determined to live in a place where wishful thinking will carry the day, perhaps you could buy a house in Disney World? 
I agree with the kid.

Quote
Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regimen t, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided.

Quote
Sun Tzu said: Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and engaging them in war entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abr oad, and men will drop out exhausted.
Opposing forces may face each other for years, striving for the victory which may be decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver is the height of stupidity.
One who acts thus is no leader of men, no present help to his cause, no master of victory. Thus, what enables the wise commander to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.
Whether the object be to crush an enemy, to storm a territory, or to kill an enemy general, it is always necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants, the aides-de-camp, and door-keepers and sentries of the general in command. Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these.
The enemy's spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become double agents and available for our service. It is through the information brought by the double agent that we are able to acquire and employ local and inward spies. It is owing to his information, again, that we can cause the doomed spy to carry false tidings to the enemy.
Lastly, it is by his information that the surviving spy can be used on appointed occasions. The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the double agent . Hence it is essential that the double agent be treated with the utmost liberality.
Hence it is only the enlightened and wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results. Spies are the most important asset, because on them depends an army's ability to march.
so does Sun Tzu. Good enough for me.

By continuing to establish democratic nations on each side of Iran, by continuing with economic pressure and political marginalization, by openly supporting legitimate Opposition groups within it's borders, and covertly creating/supporting insurrection both inside and outside it's borders, we stand a much better chance of success.

This whole nuke thing is smoke and mirrors, with Iran trying to establish itself as the Big Dog taking the fight to the Great Satan. What it really wants is to achieve domination over the 'Muslim World' (for lack of a better term), to keep the US busy outside it's borders so it can't affect events inside them, and to ensure that none of its' neighbours become strong enough to threaten it again.

It's all just the Theocracy trying desperately to maintain it's stranglehold on its' own citizens.

We have the President (a powerless puppet) screaming fiery rhetoric, while the Ayatollah (the true power) has already issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. If they really wanted one, they'd have one.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on May 21, 2006, 20:47:54
An interesting article comparing the Sun Tzu approach against the Von Clauswitz approach. I think at least some of this is going on in the shadows even as we speak.

http://op-for.com/2006/05/sun_tzu_vs_iran.html

Quote
Sun Tzu vs. Iran
By Charlie

Tonight, I am in the mood for Chinese food. That being said, I’ll serve up some Sun-Tzu-inspired strategic commentary on the Iran crisis for the noble readership of the blog.

Says Sun on warfare:

    3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

What I take from this is that if your opponent can be “led” to accept your position without fighting, it is the “highest” form of generalship. This can be done by attacking his plans, or disrupting his strategy; Clausewitz, for an opposing view, says this:

    "The acts we consider most important for the defeat of the enemy are . . --- Destruction of his army, if it is at all significant

    --- Seizure of his capital if it is not only the center of administration but also that of social, professional, and political activity

    --- Delivery of an effective blow against his principal ally if that ally is more powerful than he."

Bottom line: Sun says try to attack the plans first (asymmetrical warfare in today’s parlance), Carl says attack the forces and centers of gravity first (a more “symmetrical” or “conventional” way of waging war.)

Comes now Iran. The basic “beef” we’ve got with Iran is that they are supporting terrorism, rapidly developing nuclear weapons, contributing to the instability of the region through regime statements and support of insurgents in Iraq. All three of these issues are becoming more and more dangerous toward US interests in the region.

A General Clausewitz, if he could be resurrected form the grave and transported to the E-Ring of the Pentagon, would probably be looking at Iran’s deployment of military forces. He would consider the blue force commitment in Iraq, the enemy population centers, and devise courses of action for a military strike to solve the problem. In modern terms, Clausewitz might have looked approvingly on the initial invasion plan for Iraq, as a solution to removing Saddam from power.

A zombie General Tzu might consider the cultural, economic, and political spheres of influence in Iran –and the relation these pressures have on the ruling regime. He might next consider how to exploit gaps and apply pressure in order to accomplish the mission. If the mission was to convince Iran to abandon their nukes and stop supporting terrorism, disconnecting the regime that allows these activities from a population that might have other ideas about where their country should go –and replacing it with a more conciliatory one (or convincing the current one to see it our way) could be the choice he may recommend. Tzu might have nodded if he got to peruse the SOF plans for infiltrating into Afghanistan, teaming up with the Northern Alliance, and using US airpower to thwart the Taliban.

So how would America implement a “Tzu”-like strategy for dealing with the current Iran problem? How could we “balk his plans” best? Obviously, a full-on, Clausewitzian conventional, OIF-1-style attack would be a 100% solution for our three goals: terrorist support, nuke pursuit, and regime change, but it would be a HUGE drain on the nation, the military, and the economy. But we don’t always need a 100% solution to our problems –sometimes a 75% solution will work just fine. Using the three main problems I outlined, and –this is important- assuming regime irrationality, let’s take a look at how to sucker-punch the Iranian regime.

Politically, we should take the Kim Jong Il nuclear acquisition model Iran is currently pursuing and turn it on its head. There’s been lots of liberal talk about negotiating with Iran proper: Let’s extend the invitation to talk to the Iranians, but tie negotiations to 3 goals. Iran must stop uranium enrichment, stop supporting Hizbollah and Hamas, and cool it on the “Death to Israel” speeches –then we will gladly talk to them. By extending this offer (which Iran will certainly not comply with), the international diplomatic chess board will be upset –Iran will be exposed by having to stand by its activities, which even by UN standards aren’t up to snuff.

Economically, Iran is vulnerable. It possesses little ability to refine its top export: oil. According to the World Fact Book, Iran’s top exports are “petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits and nuts, [and] carpets.” Its imports are “industrial raw materials and intermediate goods, capital goods, foodstuffs and other consumer goods, technical services, military supplies” and its main import providers are “Japan 18.4%, China 9.7%, Italy 6%, South Africa 5.8%, South Korea 5.4%, Taiwan 4.6%, Turkey 4.4%, Netherlands 4.1% (2004).” There is an ability to economically pressure Iran, its exports, its imports, and its import providers.

Finally, Politically (…by other means…) Iran’s regime is vulnerable. They sit on an ethnically diverse populace that while a majority is Shia Persian, there is a significant, and militant, minority of Kurds in the West, and Arabs in the south (who conveniently sit on a good chunk of the country’s oil fields.) In the vein of “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” perhaps we should start fomenting a Kurdish nationalist revolt across Iraq’s border –as Iran seems to be just as willing to foment a Shia revolt in Iraq. The Kurds would love weapons and money to fight “the man,” and as long as we make it clear that they can’t carry out their revolution in Turkey, it would cause significant problems for the image-conscious Iranian regime. In the south, significant across-the-border Information Operation campaigns targeting the Arabs in Iran should simply say: “look across the border, where the Iraqis are getting a cut of their oil wealth –how much are you getting from your regime?”

Fomenting domestic troubles in Iran, economically pressuring them, and giving them a way out (ala Libya) through negotiation and compromise (read: acquiescence to US demands) would be a dramatic change of course in US policy. It may be the course of action Sun Tzu would recommend, while Clausewitz may simply recommend launching the IBCMs.
May 17, 2006 04:14 PM
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on May 23, 2006, 15:28:04
If these reports are reliable, then maybe the situation isn't as bleak as we think:

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2006/05/anti-regime-protests-on-rise-in-iran.html

Quote
I am reading different reports (also here) of unrest through out Iran, mainly in cities of Tabriz and Tehran these days.
"An Iranian blogger says: So far I have not heard of any casualties, only that Revolutionary Guards of the Islamic Republic opened fire on the demonstrations..."
Iran va Jahan reports, via NYTimes, the massive protests by the Azeri Iranians, in north west of the country, against the regime.

Reuters picks up the story / Link to original NYTimes article / Persian language Gooya.com also reports via Iran labor news agency that thousands are protesting against the Islamic regime in city of Tabriz, and many were shot at and there are unconfirmed numbers of dead & wounded.

I have also been viewing images of student protests in Tehran: Tehran University of Amir Kabir (formerly known as Poly-Technic Uni) & University of Tehran 1 & University of Tehran 2

Students are demonstrating, mainly, against the militarization of their schools and the anti-democratic path that regime is taking. I understand that there were similar protests around the country and many more students have joined the rallies to voice their anger through their demonstrations.

Their main slogans were: Down with Tyranny, Down with Dictator

One of the banners reads: Leave the nukes, Take care of us!

These two banner read: This is University, not a religious madrassa and the other one reads: University is not a military garrison

Also, Jane's Defense tells us that there is some sort of insurgency going on in south eastern parts of Iran

I guess this is the beginning of an end! We'll see...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: GAP on May 23, 2006, 15:33:35
It might be a realistic scenario that the Iranian Government is stirring the pot, hoping the US or others do something precipitous enough to create a threat the government can then use to get the people to forget their troubles and come together to beat off the invaders...or some such...add your own conspiracy theme...but it worked before, why not now?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on May 24, 2006, 02:02:30
I thought the Azeri's were protesting yet another cartoon fiasco, wherein they were compared to cockroaches in an Iranian newspaper?  Different protest?   ???
Where is my usher, I need a program.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Octavianus on July 25, 2006, 16:01:35
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1153820829434&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


Iran warns Israel of looming 'hurricane'
Jul. 25, 2006. 12:38 PM

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that the conflict between Lebanon and Israel could trigger "a hurricane" of broader fighting in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad's country is a major backer of the Hezbollah militant group and a sworn enemy of Israel. In his comments, he referred to a proverb that says: "He who raises the wind will get a hurricane."

"That proverb fully relates to the Middle East, which is a very volatile region," he said. "And it will be a strong hurricane which will strike really hard."


He has such a way with words, doesn't he!  I would suggest that this proverb he referred to could also be used against him and his Middle Eastern allies as well.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on July 25, 2006, 16:06:33
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1153820829434&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


Iran warns Israel of looming 'hurricane'
Jul. 25, 2006. 12:38 PM

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that the conflict between Lebanon and Israel could trigger "a hurricane" of broader fighting in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad's country is a major backer of the Hezbollah militant group and a sworn enemy of Israel. In his comments, he referred to a proverb that says: "He who raises the wind will get a hurricane."

"That proverb fully relates to the Middle East, which is a very volatile region," he said. "And it will be a strong hurricane which will strike really hard."


He has such a way with words, doesn't he!  I would suggest that this proverb he referred to could also be used against him and his Middle Eastern allies as well.

I think if they carry on the way they are, he should be concerned about the sun rising two, three or maybe even four times before 9 am! ;D

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on August 01, 2006, 10:56:09
The cult of death in Iran. This is a very long article, but well worth the read:

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-world

Quote
Ahmadinejad's World
The deployment of the Basiji in the mine fields shows what one can expect from the Mullah-Regime · By Matthias Küntzel

In pondering the behavior of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I cannot help but think of the 500,000 plastic keys that Iran imported from Taiwan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. At the time, an Iranian law laid down that children as young as 12 could be used to clear mine fields, even against the objections of their parents. Before every mission, a small plastic key would be hung around each of the children’s necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise.

“In the past,” wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettela’at, “we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the mine fields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone.” Such scenes could henceforth be avoided, Ettela’at assured its readers. “Before entering the mine fields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves.”[1]

The children who thus rolled to their deaths formed part of the mass “Basij” movement that was called into being by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The Basij Mostazafan – the “mobilization of the oppressed” – consisted of short-term volunteer militias. Most of the Basij members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically and by the thousands to their own destruction. “The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies,” a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War has recalled, “It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander’s orders, everyone wanted to be first.”[2]

The western media showed little interest for the Basiji – perhaps because journalists could not be present during the hostilities or perhaps because they did not believe the reports. Such disinterest has persisted to this day. The 5000 dead of Saddam Hussein’s poison gas attack on the Kurds of Halabja have remained in our memory. History has forgotten the children of the minefields.

Today, however, Ahmadinejad appears in public in his Basiji uniform. During the war, he served as one of the Basiji instructors who turned children into martyrs. The generation that fought in the Iran-Iraq War has come to power along with Ahmadinejad. He owed his election in Summer 2005 to the contemporary Basiji movement. In Fall, he announced a “Basiji Week.” According to a report in the newspaper Kayan, some 9 million Basiji heeded the call, “forming a human chain some 8,700 kilometers long…. In Tehran alone, some 1,250,000 people turned out.”[3] In his speeches, Ahmadinejad praises the “Basiji culture” and the “Basiji power” with which “Iran today makes its presence felt on the international and diplomatic stage.” Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, Chair of the Guardian Council, goes so far as to describe the very existence of Iran’s nuclear program as a triumph of those Iranians who “serve the Basiji movement and possess the Basiji-psyche and Basiji-culture.”[4]

Far from being the subject of criticism, the sacrifice made of the Basiji in the war against Iraq is celebrated nowadays more than ever before. Already in one of his first television interviews, the new President enthused: “Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr’s death?”[5] The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, held up the war against Iraq, on account of the fearlessness of the Basiji, as a model for future conflicts.

This would already be reason enough for us to be interested in the history of the Basiji. But there is another reason. The deployment of the Basiji in the Iran-Iraq War is the primordial crime of political Islam: here the cult of the religiously-motivated suicide attack finds its origins. If we want to understand why a woman sits in the Palestinian parliament who is honored, above all, because she sent three of her five sons to martyrs’ deaths, if we want to know why still today 50,000 young Iranians volunteer for suicide missions – there is no avoiding the Basiji.

The Child-Basiji in War

In 1980, the Ayatollah Khomeini called the Iraqi invasion of Iran a “divine blessing.” The war provided the perfect opportunity to Islamize both Iranian society and the institutions of the Iranian state. Within no time, Khomeini’s fanatically devoted Revolutionary Guard – the Pasdaran – had been transformed into a proper army in its own right, complete with navy and air force. At the same time, the regime hastened to develop a popular militia: the Basij Mostazafan.

Within just a few weeks, teenage boys between 12 and 17 – as well as men over 45 – had been prepared for war. During training, lack of weaponry was compensated by a surplus of religious propaganda. When their training was done, each Basij received a blood-red headband that designated him a “Volunteer for Martyrdom.”

On the battlefield, the Basiji, representing 30% of the armed forces as such, constituted the greater part of the infantry. The Pasdaran represented some 40% of the armed forces and the regular army the remaining 30%.[6] The members of the Pasdaran had generally obtained a higher level of education than the Basiji, who mostly came from the countryside and were often illiterate. While the Basiji were sent to the frontlines, the Pasdaran brought up the rear. As a rule, the Pasdaran would be sent into battle when successive waves of Basiji had already been killed off.[7]

The human wave tactic was implemented as follows: the barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies: the important thing was that the Basiji continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their deaths in wave after wave.[8] The tactic produced some undeniable initial successes for the Iranian side. “They come toward our positions in huge hordes with their fists swinging,” an Iraqi officer complained in Summer 1982, “You can shoot down the first wave, and then the second. But at some point the corpses are piling up in front of you, and all you want to do is scream and throw away your weapon. Those are human beings, after all!”[9] By Spring 1983, the Pasdaran had sent some 450,000 Basiji in shifts to the front. After three months, whoever survived his deployment was sent back to his school or workplace.[10]

How were the Basiji recruited? Principally, in the schools: the Pasdaran sent “special” educators who hand-picked their martyrs from the obligatory paramilitary exercises. Propaganda films – like the 1986 television film “A Contribution to the War” – praised this alliance between students and the regime against those parents who tried to save their children’s lives.[11]

Secondly, the regime employed incentives. Thus, in a campaign called “Sacrifice a Child for the Imam”, every family that lost a child on the battle field was offered interest-free credit and other generous benefits. Moreover, enrollment in the Basij gave the poorest of the poor a chance for social advancement. Basiji reservists are still today treated as protégés of the Mullah-regime.[12]

Thirdly, the regime employed coercive measures. The following story of young Hossein, which was documented by the German weekly der Spiegel in 1982, is merely one among thousands:

“Why did you enlist?” The youngster in the camouflage fatigues, with both sleeves and pants legs rolled up, doesn’t answer. “His name is Hossein. He doesn’t know his family name,” the translator says. The boy is twelve at most. His face is gaunt, his body is bent forward, he breathes in spurts. One can see that he has trouble staying on his feet. “Polio,” the translator says. …Hossein comes from Mostalbar, a tiny spot somewhere between Shiraz and Bandar Abbas. …One day some unknown Imams turned up in the village. They called the whole population to the plaza in front of the police station and they announced that they came with good news from Imam Khomeini: the Islamic Army of Iran had been chosen to liberate the holy city Al-Quds – Jerusalem – from the infidels. …Hossein had no choice. The local Mullah had decided that every family with children would have to furnish one soldier of God. Because Hossein was the most easily expendable for his family and because, in light of his illness, he could in any case not expect much happiness in this life, he was chosen by his father to represent the family in the struggle against the infidel devils.[13]

Of the twenty children that went into battle with Hossein, only he and two others survived.

In 1982, during the retaking of the city of Khorramshahr, 10,000 Iranians died. Following “Operation Kheiber”, in February 1984, the corpses of some 20,000 fallen Iranians were left on the battle field. The “Karbala Four” Offensive in 1986 cost the lives of more than 10,000 Iranians. All told, some 100,000 men and boys are said to have been killed during the Basiji operations.[14] Why did the Basiji rush with such fervor to their own destruction?

Why indeed? The survivors are now of age where they are in positions of leadership. A "Purple Finger" revolution in Iran will be far harder to implement than perhaps previously thought, since in terms of sheer numbers, the Basiji and Pasdaran outnumber the regular Armed Forces of Iran, and are obviously willing to commit atrocities against their fellow citizens to maintain their hold on power.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on August 01, 2006, 11:02:56
Marytodom...These guys are just as hypocritical as any Westerner.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on August 01, 2006, 18:54:54
Why indeed? The survivors are now of age where they are in positions of leadership. A "Purple Finger" revolution in Iran will be far harder to implement than perhaps previously thought, since in terms of sheer numbers, the Basiji and Pasdaran outnumber the regular Armed Forces of Iran, and are obviously willing to commit atrocities against their fellow citizens to maintain their hold on power.

Unfortunately, the solution will likely involve lots of ammo, and many barrel changes.   :(
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on August 09, 2006, 16:22:05
Mark your calendar:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768

Quote
August 22
Does Iran have something in store?

BY BERNARD LEWIS
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 4:30 p.m.

During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.

The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.

A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: LeonTheNeon on August 22, 2006, 13:21:12
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_re_eu/romania_iran_shooting

Excerpt:
Quote
BUCHAREST, Romania - Romania said Iranian troops opened fire from a warship and seized a Romanian oil rig Tuesday off the coast of Iran, holding its workers in an incident stemming from a commercial dispute.
 
Sergiu Medar, a national security adviser to Romanian President Traian Basescu, said the seizure resulted from a commercial dispute Iran is treating "in an extreme way." He gave no details.

Romania's Foreign Ministry called on Iranian authorities to immediately free Romanian crew members being held by the troops who took over the rig. The rig operator said seven Indian crew members had been released but 20 Romanians were still detained.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 22, 2006, 13:44:11
This is bad. Like, war-provoking bad. Can we nuke them, now?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 22, 2006, 13:44:53
Hmmm... guess that the Iranians are looking after trade disputes using alternative techniques......
And we're waiting for them to anounce their decision on how they will deal with the Enrichment of Uranium?

Is there any doubt how they will answer?

:???
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 22, 2006, 13:52:59
Is there any doubt how they will answer?

I think you forget who leads the UN: terrorist-loving, peace-hating, cojones-less leftist peacenik remnants of the '60s. Of course we'll wait and see!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: karl28 on August 22, 2006, 13:56:35
http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm           I did a search on google and came up with this web site and it list Romania as being a member of NATO  isn't it supposed to say that an attack on  one NATO  country is an attack on all of them ?  That's a pretty foolish move for the Iranians I wonder what kind of response they will receive?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 22, 2006, 13:59:50
Karl...
There is no Romanian land / territory in the Persian gulf.
The Oil rig is in Iranian territorial waters based on contracts between two commercial partners.....

Guess you missed diplomacy 101 at school
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bo on August 22, 2006, 14:04:29
Wow! CNN reports that an Iranian warship fired at a Romanian oil rig with absolutely no details as to WHY they fired, what the causes were, etc, and everyone loses their ability to actually think and just reacts.

Quote
Eugen Chira, the political consul at the Romanian Embassy in Tehran confirmed the incident, but provided few details.

"Some forces opened fire. That an incident has happened is true. We have no details or the reason yet," he said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/22/iran.romania.ap/


Come on people, use some common sense. This is a military warship and they do have to follow rules of engagement. Why would they attack for no reason? Oh I forgot, cause everyone in Iran is a terrorist who should be nuked  ::)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 22, 2006, 14:06:04
Karl...
There is no Romanian land / territory in the Persian gulf.
The Oil rig is in Iranian territorial waters based on contracts between two commercial partners.....

Guess you missed diplomacy 101 at school

If it's a Romanian-owned oil rig, wouldn't attacking it be somewhat (not completely alike) like attacking, say, an embassy, or perhaps more accurately, a ship? Either way, firing on foreign nationals is just asking for crap to happen.

Why would they attack for no reason? Oh I forgot, cause everyone in Iran is a terrorist who should be nuked  ::)

I dunno, why would people fly planes into buildings?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: karl28 on August 22, 2006, 14:09:55
"Guess you missed diplomacy 101 at school "
Diplomacy ?? ?? ??    ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: probum non poenitet on August 22, 2006, 14:18:08
This is a military warship and they do have to follow rules of engagement. Why would they attack for no reason?

Nobody knows the reasons for sure, but there are two things of which you can almost be certain:

1) This attack was carried out with the approval of the top levels of the Iranian government
2) The Iranian government is well aware of the diplomatic shockwaves it will send out, regardless of the attack being 'justified' or not

For reasons big or small, they are rocking a fragile boat.
The Iranians have been unpredictable recently, and unpredictable is a bad thing internationally.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: GAP on August 22, 2006, 14:28:23
Nobody knows the reasons for sure, but there are two things of which you can almost be certain:

1) This attack was carried out with the approval of the top levels of the Iranian government
2) The Iranian government is well aware of the diplomatic shockwaves it will send out, regardless of the attack being 'justified' or not

For reasons big or small, they are rocking a fragile boat.
The Iranians have been unpredictable recently, and unpredictable is a bad thing internationally.

Not really. Like they are going to get invaded by Romania? No, it's attention getting, vaudeville, call it what you will, but essentially it will bring no harm to them, so they will get away with it.

Why do it? I still maintain that everything that Iran has done externally both physical and verbally, has had one aim. It stifles internal dissent. Everyone forgets that a year ago there were demonstrations in the streets in Tehran, how many do you see now. They are crazy like a fox.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 22, 2006, 14:28:34
The Romanian oil rig is the prperty of a comercial company - not the Romanian Gov't
The Romanian rig was built or positioned, with Iranian permision (?) in Iranian waters.
If the Iranian Gov't dissagrees with the presence of Romanian business interests, then they will express their displeasure in some way or the other....

Embassies are deemed to be sovereign land within the borders of a country
An oil rig in the Gulf of Persia is located on Iranian sovereign land / water.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: probum non poenitet on August 22, 2006, 14:35:52
Not really. Like they are going to get invaded by Romania? No, it's attention getting, vaudeville, call it what you will, but essentially it will bring no harm to them, so they will get away with it.

Why do it? I still maintain that everything that Iran has done externally both physical and verbally, has had one aim. It stifles internal dissent. Everyone forgets that a year ago there were demonstrations in the streets in Tehran, how many do you see now. They are crazy like a fox.

I agree ... they will probably get away with it, and I sincerely doubt they are trying to start World War III.

But with the region as unstable as it is, and Iran being the U.S.'s #1 boogie-man, every time you pull a stunt like this you are playing "Wheel of Nuclear Fortune"

I would file it under "not clever"
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 22, 2006, 14:41:16
I agree ... they will probably get away with it, and I sincerely doubt they are trying to start World War III."

I'm going to disagree here. Iran has been working for years at provoking the international community--particularly the US--through any means possible.

They, or at least the Iranian leaders, think the Twelfth Imam is coming; do you think they care if fire starts raining in Tehran? If anything they'll be happy!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: aesop081 on August 22, 2006, 14:52:35
Wow! CNN reports that an Iranian warship fired at a Romanian oil rig with absolutely no details as to WHY they fired, what the causes were, etc, and everyone loses their ability to actually think and just reacts.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/22/iran.romania.ap/


Come on people, use some common sense. This is a military warship and they do have to follow rules of engagement. Why would they attack for no reason? Oh I forgot, cause everyone in Iran is a terrorist who should be nuked  ::)

I see you make your arguments as convincing as always....... ::)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 22, 2006, 15:00:47
From Starfor (fair use et al)


Iran: The Romanian Oil Rig Move
August 22, 2006 11 39  GMT

Summary

Iran seized control of an oil rig operated by a Romanian company in the Persian Gulf on Aug. 22, just hours before Tehran's national security chief planned to deliver the Iranian counteroffer to the incentives package from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany on its nuclear issue. Tehran is demonstrating that it is willing to go to extreme lengths should the West respond harshly to its refusal to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Analysis

Iran occupied an oil rig operated by Romanian company GSP near Kish Island in the Persian Gulf on Aug. 22, a company spokesman said. The Iranians fired warning shots over the rig and then boarded it, after which GSP lost contact with its workers. An Iranian official claimed the seizure was due to contractual issues with the Romanian firm. GSP had recently begun moving three rigs it was operating in the area, while the Iranian oil company PetroIran protestd the move.

The seizure comes hours before Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Council and top nuclear negotiator, is expected to deliver Tehran's formal response to the incentives package from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. This is not a coincidence. The Iranians are signaling that they can be expected to respond harshly if any punitive action is taken against them for refusing to comply with the demand to halt enrichment. The takeover of the rig sends the message that there can be repercussions for the energy sector if Iran is sanctioned or subject to a military attack.

In essence the Iranians are expressing their willingness to negotiate, but with a gun in their hand.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: DBA on August 22, 2006, 15:57:29
Lets not read too much into firing some shots which can be a show of force and intent more often than a direct attack. A example would be Canada firing across the bow of the Spanish trawler Estai during the Turbot War in the 90's. It's a worrying development but there is currently little information of what the dispute is and why it has escalated.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Centurian1985 on August 22, 2006, 16:10:40
Iran occupied an oil rig operated by Romanian company GSP near Kish Island in the Persian Gulf on Aug. 22, a company spokesman said. The Iranians fired warning shots over the rig and then boarded it, after which GSP lost contact with its workers. An Iranian official claimed the seizure was due to contractual issues with the Romanian firm. GSP had recently begun moving three rigs it was operating in the area, while the Iranian oil company PetroIran protestd the move.

Some Iranian military officers are reputed to conduct actions wthout the approval of their government, especially if it involves extortion or 'protection'...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Popurhedoff on August 22, 2006, 16:43:51
The only question that remains in my opinion is...

"How thick do they want the glass?"

Cheers
Pop
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 22, 2006, 17:24:15
The only question that remains in my opinion is...

"How thick do they want the glass?"

Cheers
Pop

Wow, for a zoomie you sure are hardcore!

I do agree, though. :)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 22, 2006, 21:33:19
Possibly Pasdaran Navy responsible for this incident. Look for the SEALs to go in and free these guys unless they have been transported to an Iranian port.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 22, 2006, 22:02:09
Hmmm...
the US navy to the rescue?
Oy..... why is it that I have this impression the Iranians are counting on exactly that reaction?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 22, 2006, 22:45:39
Who else would be able to ride to the rescue ?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 22, 2006, 22:47:49
yeah......
it's just that the Iranians know that too.... and although they might be acting in a provocative way - they have not drawn blood.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 22, 2006, 22:50:02
I guess its ok then. ::)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 22, 2006, 22:50:48
didn't say that.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 22, 2006, 22:51:52
Whats your position then ?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 22, 2006, 22:55:09
At this time, unless you've heard something that I haven't, Romania has not asked for assistance and any action initiated by the US would be premature.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 22, 2006, 23:04:10
Ya let's let diplomacy work. ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 22, 2006, 23:54:59
Given up hope, have you?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 22, 2006, 23:56:26
Given up hope, have you?

Haven't you?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on August 23, 2006, 00:12:15
More evidence that Iran wants to be seen as the big shooter in the region.  I'm betting that Iran is quite bent that Israel didn't turn Lebanon into a major war zone, and they had some convoluted battle plan to start a massive regional conflict.  Now that things are settling down (I know, just let it slide for now) they are all ramped up and no war to fight. 
So why not dick around with a minor NATO ally, and see what sort of reaction they can get?  Wars have started over less, have they not? 
Is there any chance that the oil rig is a dual purpose device, and actually is some sort of listening station?  Or is that too Bond-ish? 
Hopefully they can figure out what Iranian Pres. Gearbox is up to and work around it.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: probum non poenitet on August 23, 2006, 00:21:29
Is there any chance that the oil rig is a dual purpose device, and actually is some sort of listening station?  Or is that too Bond-ish? 

Too Bond-ish? No way ... maybe the Iranians are shooting a remake of Diamonds are Forever? Any reports of a bald guy with a cat escaping the oil rig on a submarine, and I'm reassessing the whole thing.   ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Target Up on August 23, 2006, 00:25:08
I'm starting to wonder how long it will be before Israel splits from the whole effin' program and just preemptively nukes Tehran, Damascus, and anyone else in dire need of an Old Testament type crap kicking.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on August 23, 2006, 00:37:16
I'm starting to wonder how long it will be before Israel splits from the whole effin' program and just preemptively nukes Tehran, Damascus, and anyone else in dire need of an Old Testament type crap kicking.

I'm in.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bo on August 23, 2006, 13:06:44
Quote
Iran Denies Seizing Romanian Oil Rig

August 23, 2006 -- The Iranian Foreign Ministry today denied that Iranian troops have occupied a Romanian rig in the Persian Gulf.


However, it said Iranian police prevented materials belonging to the Orizont rig from being transferred, and will do so as long as a legal dispute between Iranian and Romanian companies remains unsettled.

The Romanian Embassy in Tehran says Iranian military forces on August 22 attacked and occupied the rig, which belongs to the Romanian group Servicii Petroliere.

Who's to believe? Has anyone else found info on this topic? There doesn't seem to be much reported on the matter.


http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/68BFF139-A8A1-44A1-B3BF-3EC3C1E4F159.html (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/68BFF139-A8A1-44A1-B3BF-3EC3C1E4F159.html)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Hunter on August 23, 2006, 13:12:44
I have a friend with parents in Romania, and according to them the Romanian media isn't saying much at all other than that there has been an 'incident' due to an economic dispute.  According to them the Iranians have withdrawn all the military pers but left 3 police on the rig as observers.  No word on whether the military has rigged the rig (pardon the awkward wording) it to explode if attacked. 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 23, 2006, 13:24:14
Who's to believe? Has anyone else found info on this topic? There doesn't seem to be much reported on the matter.


http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/68BFF139-A8A1-44A1-B3BF-3EC3C1E4F159.html (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/68BFF139-A8A1-44A1-B3BF-3EC3C1E4F159.html)

I'll believe what Iran says when they stop lying and trying to deceive everyone. Until then, everything they say is lies and propaganda.

Trying to believe Iran is like going into a maximum-security prison, talking to a guy who's in jail for embezzlement and murder, and saying "hmm, maybe I should believe HIM instead of his victims."
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 23, 2006, 16:42:00
If Iran has withdrawn it's troops and both countries admit that this is a COMMERCIAL dispute, imagine the fine mess we'd be in if the SEALS had gone in fightin - without an invite or a howdie-doo..........
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 23, 2006, 16:52:13
If Iran has withdrawn it's troops and both countries admit that this is a COMMERCIAL dispute, imagine the fine mess we'd be in if the SEALS had gone in fightin - without an invite or a howdie-doo..........

Yeah but now that Iran knows nobody will react--even by talking--if they start shooting at civilians (even just warning shots), do you think they'll let things go on? No, every time they get involved in a trade/commercial dispute, they're gonna go in guns blazing and strongarm their way into whatever they want.

Let's not wait until they're too bold and powerful to act; make sure Iran knows not to screw up and attack civilians. Now.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: paracowboy on August 23, 2006, 17:01:06
If Iran keeps up with this sort of tactic, they'll simply lose out on all their revenue, since few companies will deal with them. They're lunatics with an agenda, but it'll bite them in the *** commercially, just as it did with Uncle Moammar. Iran needs to be jerked up by they short and curlies, but not over COMMERCIAL reasons.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 23, 2006, 17:06:29
Frederick,

While I am a firm believer that something has to be done to bring the Iranian gov't to heed warnings AND work with international bodies, I don't think it is appropriate, fair or reasonnable to have the US NAVY, SEALS, MARINES & DELTA go storming in to Iran, a sovereign country, without the involvment of someone directly & intimately involved in the incident .... (in this case - the Romanians)

In this case, it appears to have been a commercial dispute between Servicii Petroliere AND the Iranian state petroleum company.....
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 23, 2006, 17:07:58
PC....
Unfortunately, China is so hungry for oil that they will gladly accept to take delivery of all of Iran's oil production...... guess you'll have to find another way to bite them on the a**
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: paracowboy on August 23, 2006, 17:16:06
no worries. They're going down. Just a question of when, and how many innocents they slaughter in the meantime.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 23, 2006, 17:21:09
Frederick,

While I am a firm believer that something has to be done to bring the Iranian gov't to heed warnings AND work with international bodies, I don't think it is appropriate, fair or reasonnable to have the US NAVY, SEALS, MARINES & DELTA go storming in to Iran, a sovereign country, without the involvment of someone directly & intimately involved in the incident .... (in this case - the Romanians)

In this case, it appears to have been a commercial dispute between Servicii Petroliere AND the Iranian state petroleum company.....

I agree the US (and the West in general) shouldn't go storming into sovereign countries, but someone should at least say something. Y'know, tell Iran "hey, that's not right, don't do it again."

Besides, as you pointed out, it was a dispute between two companies, so why did Iran need to involve their military?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: geo on August 23, 2006, 17:21:42
Ayup
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: paracowboy on August 23, 2006, 18:19:32
Besides, as you pointed out, it was a dispute between two companies, so why did Iran need to involve their military?
two most likely reasons:
1. Sending a message. They're just itchin' to show they're the big dogs. Usual tactics for them, really. Negotiation through intimidation. Thugs cloaking themselves in religion.

2. Rogue element using a private army to gain a better footing for mo' money. Less likely, though. Odds of pulling it off without superiours finding out are minimal, and independent action in Iran gets you real dead, real fast.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: nowhere_man on August 23, 2006, 19:15:25
Mabey we should tell the UN and get them to write a letter to Iran saying there being bad and if it happens again the UN will be very angry ;D.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on August 23, 2006, 19:19:43
Mabey we should tell the UN and get them to write a letter to Iran saying there being bad and if it happens again the UN will be very angry ;D.

The UN, angry? Oh please! They only get angry when the US shows how useless the UN has become.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 26, 2006, 16:08:07
This is not reassuring.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-26-iran_x.htm?csp=34

Quote
Iran's hard-line president on Saturday inaugurated a heavy-water production plant, a facility the West fears will be used to develop a nuclear bomb, as Tehran remained defiant ahead of a U.N. deadline that could lead to sanctions.

The U.N. has called on Tehran to stop the separate process of uranium enrichment — which also can be used to create nuclear weapons — by Thursday or face economic and political sanctions...

Though the West's main worry has been enrichment of uranium that could be used in a bomb, it also has called on Iran to stop the construction of a heavy-water reactor near the production plant that Ahmadinejad inaugurated...

The spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for use in a bomb...

And three years ago Iran was talking about a CANDU connection.
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/iran/nuke2003.htm

Quote
In a letter dated May 5 [2003], Mr. Aghazadeh informed the IAEA of Iran's intention to build a heavy water power reactor using Canadian CANDU reactor technology. The announcement complemented Iran's numerous statements of its intention to build additional reactors in order to generate about 6,000 megawatts of electricity. Immediately following this announcement, Canadian officials vigorously denied any intention of selling CANDU technology to Iran.

More here.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_06/iran_june03.asp

One wonders how many Iranian-origin scientists have been working at AECL or Ontario Power Generation.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on August 26, 2006, 16:31:05
Very interesting to say the least... I really hope we can recruit as fast as the Conservatives hope we can because it looks like we might need every single body we can muster in about 2-3 years time.... If that long, if things keep going the way they are. They're just not letting up it seems.

I ask this question to those of you who have far better situational awareness than I. Is it inevatible that we will soon be going to war on a large scale with Iran and/or other Middle Eastern nations in say, perhaps the next 5 years or so? I know this has partially been discussed in other threads on here, but does it not seem inevatible really? When they keep pushing every button they can?

Practice marksmanship principles anyone?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on August 26, 2006, 17:46:37
My spider senses are tingling!!!!! A feel a surgical airstrike is coming?

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: bubba on August 26, 2006, 18:29:59
I think its comin shortly myself because if not i think Isreal will be a 9 hours long by 6 hours wide parkin lot if Iran developes there bomb.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: MCG on August 26, 2006, 20:15:23
Iran opens heavy water plant: CANDU connection?
Maybe, but even the Nazi experiments with nuclear technology were dependant on heavy water.  Over the years, most countries have gone to other moderators because of the challenges of producing heavy water.  However, the idea is not uniquely Canadian.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 26, 2006, 20:44:08
The Iranians will not be stopped by diplomacy.We need to hurt Iran in the pocket book. Force her to spend valuable resources on rebuilding their oil facilities rather than nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: milnews.ca on August 26, 2006, 20:44:37
Causes of spidey sense for a coming strike?

Israel Prepares for War with Iran
Jim Kouri, NewsLog, 26 Aug 06
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/26/israel-prepares-for-war-with-iran/

The Israeli military estabishment reports that they’ve created a new command to deal exclusively with Iran.  Basically, according to Israeli officials, Israel has expanded its military command structure to include an “Iran Command” as prospects of war with the radical Islamic country appear inevitable.  According to Ha’aretz, Israeli Air Force commander Major General Elyezer Shkedy was appointed as “GOC Iran Command” (commanding officer) and will be tasked with coordinating all military and intelligence efforts in the event of a war with Iran . . . .


Israel May Have To 'Go It Alone' Against Iran
Ryan Jones, All Headline News, 24 Aug 06
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004638537

Iran's ongoing defiance of international demands regarding its nuclear program and the world's failure to do anything about it but talk may compel Israel to take matters into its own hands, senior government sources in Jerusalem warned Wednesday .  . . . Speaking to The Jerusalem Post on condition of anonymity, one official said Tehran's written response Tuesday to international incentives to stop its uranium enrichment efforts was a clear rejection that Iran knew perfectly well would carry no consequences . . . . The source added, "This is similar to the world's attempts to appease Hitler in the 1930s - they are trying to feed the beast."  He said that if things continued like this very much longer, Israel would have to be prepared to use the means at its disposal to "slow down" Iran's nuclear program . . . .


Israel beefs up its fleet of subs:  The purchase of two more nuclear submarines sends a message to Iran
Associated Press, 25 Aug 06
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/08/25/100wir_a7israel001.cfm

With the purchase of two more German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads, military experts say Israel is sending a clear message to Iran that it can strike back if attacked by nuclear weapons.  The purchases come at a time when Iran is refusing to bow to growing Western demands to halt its nuclear program, and after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" . . . .

LATEST ON SUBS, THOUGH....

A deal under which Germany will sell Israel two submarines foresees the vessels being delivered starting in 2010, and they are not being equipped to fire nuclear weapons, an official said Friday.   The sale of the submarines was first reported by The Jerusalem Post on August 22.  The German government said earlier this week that the HDW shipyard signed a contract with Israeli authorities July 6 to build the two Dolphin-class submarines. Israel already has three of that type submarine.  "The delivery of these two Dolphin class submarines is foreseen for 2010, not earlier, according to current planning," and therefore the vessels have "no relevance" to the current conflict in the Middle East, government spokesman Thomas Steg told reporters . . . .
(Jerusalem Post, 25 Aug 06 at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525945057&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull )





Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Mr.Newf on August 26, 2006, 20:46:03
Something bad is bound to happen. Airstricks, Iran retaliation in Iraq and Afghanistan and a strike against Israel. It's not good.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: DSB on August 26, 2006, 21:25:35
India and Pakistan went at it like cats and dogs for years.  Once they both got nukes they really did settle down, (for the most part).   Will finally having the nuke get the chip off their shoulder and let them calm the **** down?


DSB
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: DSB on August 26, 2006, 21:29:10
Perhaps having a nuke might get people to hear out their grievances, (all their issues/beefs can't be BS).  It's hard not to take anyone seriously if they got atomic weapons.

DSB
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on August 26, 2006, 21:32:51
India and Pakistan went at it like cats and dogs for years.  Once they both got nukes they really did settle down, (for the most part).   Will finally having the nuke get the chip off their shoulder and let them calm the **** down?


DSB

Sorry DSB, if you think that, pigs can fly. We must remember, the whole country is radicalised, and helll bent on destroying Israel and the Great Satan, and anyone else who stands in their way. Iran is the new 'Nazi Germany of 1939' in the region, and they are dangerous beyond a joke. They are nuts enough nuke us (the west) too.

Sadly, any sort of nuclear tinkering must be stopped NOW, not later, and how its stopped is only going to be in the form of HE. No $$$ or anything else will do it. As time is wasted they get stronger by our weakness, as far as I am concerned, dimplomacy is over.

Giving a tin pot radical islamic backward-arse country living with 21 century technology, and the mentality of the 13th century authorisation for nuclear technology spells 100's of thousands of casualties and worse for us.



Wait for it.

Wes
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: sdimock on August 27, 2006, 01:43:11
And despite the political fallout, an air strike can't happen soon enough, yesterday would have been good.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Magravan on August 27, 2006, 10:29:57
Perhaps this is naive of me, but why do they not simply create the reactors elsewhere, and offer the Iranian's energy for cheap? It gives them the energy they claim to want, and forces them to either admit that they are not only interested in the energy, or to stop doing what they are doing because that is what they want. The international community is already willing to make deals and spend money to get them to stop...

I'll admit, it's probably naive..
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bo on August 27, 2006, 11:49:29
This for all those people who keep trying to justify attacking Iran because he threatened to "Wipe Israel off the map".

Quote
Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?

To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.

But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:

"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
(source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)


It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 27, 2006, 12:52:38
Ahmadinejad has said on a number of occaisions that Irael must be destroyed or moved.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1251269&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Old Guy on August 27, 2006, 13:09:01
Nice try, Bo.  I don't know who you are, but Ahmadinejad has said time and again he wants the "destruction and downfall" of Israel.  So have other prominent Iranian speakers.

It took me five minutes of Internet searching and a few minutes of reading to find no less than three examples.  Misinformation only works where people aren't intelligent enough to check the sources.  Few people at Army.ca fall into the category of willing believers of such tripe, whether dispensed by the western media or by a useful idiot.

jim
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chris Pook on August 27, 2006, 13:41:43
I don't know T6 and Old Guy.  I think Bo has performed a service here. 

We now have a text that he believes accurately reflects the position of the Iranian Government.  I read the text and still see Ahmedinajad calling for the establishment of an Islamic World the elimination of the occupying power, the stain that is Israel.

But that's just me. One juror in a jury of 6,000,000,000.

Funny, I didn't think smart lawyers introduced into evidence statements that tended to condemn their clients.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 27, 2006, 14:22:30
 ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 27, 2006, 14:26:41
IMHO, this was simply put up as one of Bo's trolls. He watched it for awhile and didn't respond to the factual rebuttals. I see no need to continue this. The normal caveat applies.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Taggart on August 27, 2006, 14:58:38
Your point has been partially discussed I believe, when the Russians offered to build some non-threatening reactors for the Iranians, but they said no thankyou. So I think that sums it up.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Pieman on August 27, 2006, 16:06:21
Quote
Though the West's main worry has been enrichment of uranium that could be used in a bomb, it also has called on Iran to stop the construction of a heavy-water reactor near the production plant that Ahmadinejad inaugurated...

The spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for use in a bomb...

Heavy water is the major component in how a Hydrogen bomb functions too.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 28, 2006, 20:57:34
A bit embarassing for Merkle I am sure. ::)

http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8506060558
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chris Pook on August 28, 2006, 21:55:41
Amazing - It should be interesting to see Merckel's response.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Haggis on August 28, 2006, 22:53:02
Verbose, isn't he!
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CloudCover on August 28, 2006, 22:57:27
I'd like to know if that letter is even authentic. As far as I know, that man would gut her like a fish at the very first instance. 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Spr.Earl on August 28, 2006, 23:08:19
I think he is relying on that they would like to win one at least once seeing as they have lost twice. ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: CloudCover on August 28, 2006, 23:37:36
I think he is relying on that they would like to win one at least once seeing as they have lost twice. ;D

Seems it was theirs to lose in both cases as well. I don't think this particular Frau will back a demon possessed dark horse trying to pass itself off as merely an ***.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Le Gars on August 28, 2006, 23:47:55
Agreed, Germany didn't do well when it was at war with or loosely allied to any country in the Asian continent.  ;) 

Honestly though, I can't imagine that he may have thought any tangible gains could be made in a political/economic sense. Those that would be lasting anyway.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: warspite on August 30, 2006, 23:20:24
Careful the U.N. may hear you ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: North Star on August 31, 2006, 14:58:37
Wow - the diplomatic version of the famous "Nigerian Scam" letter. After reading his letter to Bush, it's pretty hard to take this guy seriously.

I suspect this is merely an attempt to leverage differences in policy towards Iran between the EU and US, with a secondary aim of trying to acquire German diplomatic channels to the US for indirect negotiations in the nuclear issue. Not much new here except something to chuckle at.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: pbi on September 06, 2006, 23:45:45
And I have to wonder what the real purpose of this is....

Did he (or anybody advising him...) think that this was going to sway Germany, with clumsy (and sometimes glaringly wrong) references to history? Or was it really released as much for Iranian internal consumption as for our benefit? ("Look at me, Iranian people: see how diplomatically and nicely I talk to these European fools. I've tried to be reasonable with them-whatever comes next certainly isn't my fault...)

Cheers
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chris Pook on September 07, 2006, 00:29:21
Might be something in that pbi -

There does seem to be an uptick in the number of public hangings in the Kurdish, Arab and Baloch areas of the country (around the borders) as the administration eliminates "smugglers" and "disruptive influences".   As well there was at least one bombing in the South West.  And Ahmedinajad is calling for a new student uprising and the shutting down of the secular faculty at universities.

There was also a report about Ahmedinajad being locally accused of corruption.

He is not unpressured.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: wotan on September 08, 2006, 12:57:16
  I think PBI has hit on it and that this is for public consumption.

  Then again, maybe Ahmadijenad thinks that Herr Joachim v. Ribbentrop is still Foreign Minister.  Or just wishes he was.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: probum non poenitet on September 08, 2006, 13:48:39
Wow - the diplomatic version of the famous "Nigerian Scam" letter.

That's funny ...

... from the people who brought you The Zimmerman Telegram, Hess' Flight to Scotland, and The Premature Recognition of Croatia ...

... it's Germany's Diplomatic Bloopers and Practical Jokes.

Maybe Iran will attack Pearl Harbor, and Germany will jump on board three days later?
Just spitballin'  ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Inky on September 16, 2006, 19:13:54
I think that the letter is authentic.

Ahmadinejad is the kind of person to do something like that ;D
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Shec on September 18, 2006, 20:43:29
Amazing - It should be interesting to see Merckel's response.

Could this be the start of a new army.ca game called  Lets draft Angela's response.  Allow me to get it started.  Please add to it:

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

I am writing in reply to your recent letter expressing your interest in the Federal German Republic...
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Infanteer on September 18, 2006, 22:03:49
...Unfortuantely, we tried rocking the boat before; my advice from one leader to another, don't do it, because the free-world will bring some whoop-*** on you.

Signed,
Angela
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: paracowboy on September 18, 2006, 22:08:40
p.s.
I love your dresses. Where do you get them?
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chris Pook on October 03, 2006, 15:34:48
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20061002-102008-6971r.htm

Quote
If and when Bush 'Iraqs' Iran
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
October 3, 2006


A strategic thinker who called all the correct diplomatic and military plays preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom now sees diplomatic failure and air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. The war on Iran, he says, started a year ago when the U.S. began conducting secret recon missions inside Iran.
    Sam Gardiner, 67, has taught strategy at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. The retired Air Force colonel recently published as a Century Foundation Report "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy': Assessing the U.S. Military Option on Iran."
    President Bush and his national security council believe seven "key truths" that eliminate all but the military option, according to Mr. Gardiner, who adds his own comments:
    (1) Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction -- "that is most likely true."
    (2) Iran is ignoring the international community -- "true."
    (3) Iran supports Hezbollah and terrorism -- "true."
    (4) Iran is increasingly inserting itself in Iraq and beginning to get involved in Afghanistan -- "true."
    (5) The people of Iran want a regime change -- "most likely an exaggeration."
    (6) Sanctions won't work -- "most likely true."
    (7) You cannot negotiate with these people -- "not proven." .....

This has the ring of a real possibility to it.

Quote
....Congressional approval? When Democratic members of Congress offered an amendment to the Defense bill in June that would have required the president to get authorization before taking military action, the amendment failed. A strike on Iran, as seen by the White House, has already been authorized. It's part of the global war on terrorism. So the strike on Iran could be ordered any time in the next two years.

G.W.'s  hands will be untied after November.  More to Follow.

As for the caveat mentioned in the article that Iran will become the permanent enemy of the US: What is it now?
And as for multiple aim points 1 B2 can simultaneously drop 80 500lb JDAMS (16 2000lb JDAMS) on multiple aim points without crossing the targets.  It doesn't take too many sorties to reach 400 aim points.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-2-specs.htm



Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chris Pook on October 03, 2006, 18:35:13
And in a potentially related development.....not only would Israel have to go through French "Peace Keepers" to get to Hezbollah but the US would have to go through French Nuclear Techs to get to Iran's nuke programme.

Quote
Iran pushes France nuclear deal 
 
Iran has suggested that France monitor its nuclear programme, by setting up a nuclear fuel consortium inside Iran.

....... The deputy director of Iran's atomic energy agency, Mohammad Saeedi, told French radio that a solution to the nuclear issue could be a consortium with France to enrich uranium in Iran.

"That way France... could control in a tangible way our enrichment activities," Mohammad Saeedi, deputy chief of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told France-Info radio. ......


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5401828.stm

More to follow no doubt......

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on October 04, 2006, 02:11:55
Of course, the French had technical staff at the Osirik reactor just outside Bagdad in 1981 as well. They were lucky then, apparently only one person ended up playing "catch" with an Israeli bomb.......................
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on October 08, 2006, 13:23:07
And in a potentially related development.....not only would Israel have to go through French "Peace Keepers" to get to Hezbollah but the US would have to go through French Nuclear Techs to get to Iran's nuke programme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5401828.stm

More to follow no doubt......



Oh, well then.  The French will be trusted with the security of the middle east.  **PHEW!!** Thank god we have that problem sorted out.   ::) Olive vinyards and flowers in the desert to follow. 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on October 08, 2006, 13:35:47
Some experts feel that Israel will strike Iran with their Jericho missiles - conventional warheads.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on October 08, 2006, 13:41:33
Some experts feel that Israel will strike Iran with their Jericho missiles - conventional warheads.

If that happens, it's gonna get real ugly, real fast.   :-\
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chris Pook on October 08, 2006, 22:49:34
One more sign of chipping at the foundations.

Quote
Popular Iranian cleric opposed to mixing religion and politics is detained
   


 
 
 
 
 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A popular Shiite Muslim cleric who opposes mixing religion and politics was detained Sunday after his supporters clashed with police outside his home in the capital Tehran, news reports said.

Hossein Kazemeini Boroujerdi, a mid-ranking cleric, receives hundreds of visitors at home every day asking for his blessing but he is not favoured among Iran's hardline clerics under Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei because he does not support politicizing Islam.

About 200 demonstrators gathered beginning Saturday at Boroujerdi's home, fearing he could be arrested. The Interior Ministry said the demonstrators had blocked roads using swords and acid.

The demonstrators clashed with police and authorities fired back with tear gas to scatter the crowd, several nongovernment newspapers reported.

Later Sunday, the Interior Ministry said authorities detained several members of a "religious cult" after they attacked people with knives and acid. The ministry, in a statement posted on its Web site, did not name any of those arrested. But the semiofficial Mehr News Agency reported that one of those detained was 50-year-old Boroujerdi.

Telephone calls to Iranian authorities were not immediately returned Sunday.

In August, police failed to detain Boroujerdi when his supporters clashed with police in front of his home. He was detained twice in 1995 and 2000.
 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/10/08/1984745-ap.html

That is in addition to this:

 
Quote
Ayatollah's grandson calls for US overthrow of Iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on October 09, 2006, 14:50:30
That is in addition to this:
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/18/ixnews.html


Very interesting article.  I wonder if he is paying into some other agenda, or if he really is trying to get a war going.  And why the US?  Seems they have enough on their plate.  You would think he would be calling for the world to come in, not just the Americans.   ???
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: zipperhead_cop on November 01, 2006, 01:07:58
Okay, so WTF is Russia playing at?

Russia says believes Iran's nuke program peaceful
2 hours, 24 minutes ago
 
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Tuesday it believed Iran's nuclear program was peaceful, and a political dialogue, not sanctions, must be used in talks with Tehran.

"We do not have information that would suggest that Iran is carrying out a non-peaceful (nuclear) program," Russian Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov told a news conference in Moscow.

"We believe that the possibilities for continuing political discussion around this problem (Iran's nuclear program) have not been exhausted," he said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in a telephone conversation on Monday that talks over Iran's nuclear dispute were being hindered because the European side did not have enough authority.

"The most important problem in continuing Iran and Europe's negotiations (over the nuclear issue) is the European side's lack of enough authority (to take decisions)," an Iranian television report quoted Ahmadinejad as telling Putin.

In a statement on Monday, the Kremlin said Putin had told the Iranian leader that Moscow favored further talks.

Iran says negotiations are the only way to resolve the dispute. But Iran's failure to meet a U.N. deadline to halt enrichment has opened up the possibility of U.N. sanctions.

European states have prepared a draft sanctions resolution but Russia has voiced misgivings.

"Sanctions should not be adopted for their own sake," Ivanov said.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana held months of talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. But those talks did not reach a deal and Solana said this month it was up to Iran to decide if talks should continue.

"Some Western countries create obstacles and prevent a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear case," Ahmadinejad said.

Iran has often blamed the United States, its arch-foe, for seeking to sway others against Iran. Washington has been seeking to toughen the sanctions resolution

Are they just trying to score some cheap oil, or is there some other dynamic going on here? 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: MCG on November 01, 2006, 01:13:05
Are they just trying to score some cheap oil, or is there some other dynamic going on here?
No, but it is still commercial interest.  They are making money supporting Iran's reactors and selling the technology. 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on November 01, 2006, 10:08:49
Russia is trying to assert regional influence in SW Asia, and by extension, limit or reduce American influence. Playing the "enemy of my enemy" card is not very smart in the mid to long term for Russia or Europe; Iran and Radical Islam is hostile to Christendom and Mother Russia, and with nuclear weaponry will be able to become even more assertive and aggressive than they are now.

Just imagine if a nuclear Iran decides it has interests in the French riots or Chechnya, and you will see what I mean.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Zell_Dietrich on November 06, 2006, 16:47:14

People here are giving such good postings,  I almost feel bad for wanting to bring some levity to the thread.

 :rofl:
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/1359741

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/1359561

(I put these here only out of humour,  please don't flame - I think it is funny)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on November 06, 2006, 17:28:51
The issue is do we believe Tehran that their program is peaceful or do we strike Iran in an attempt to delay or curtail their program. Once Tehran has nuclear weapons then we are in a completely different game - a much more deadly one. The Iranians will figure that few countries would go nuclear on the behalf of say Israel. They probably can scare europe into compliance. The Gulf oil states will be under the nuclear protection of the US - so Tehran's approach here will be one of subversion. There are large shia minorities throughout this region that can be used to force these governments into collapse. In this way Tehran can avoid US nuclear retaliation because they know that all of these governments are built on sand. Tehran will settle for nothing less than shia domination of the region with their hand on the oil spiggot of the west.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: jonoxford on November 06, 2006, 18:20:36
Sounds like a case for Moab if Israel and the US have the guts. This war is going to be very scarey. I think it will change the world. War in the straits of Hormuz = Oil at at least 150-300 a barrel. This is all we need for a peak oil scenario.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Zell_Dietrich on November 06, 2006, 18:24:08
This is all we need for a peak oil scenario.

Well,  an argument could be made that it wouldn't be such a bad thing. We need to get off of the oil addiction.  Besides,  I know many Albertians would become overnight trillionairs if the price doubled.  ;D  Remember Canada produces more oil than we consume.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: tomahawk6 on November 06, 2006, 18:26:43
High oil prices will spur soy diesel, ethanol, tar sands and coal liquification. Short term pain but long term gain. You have to remember that Iran is as dependent on oil revenue as we are to oil. The Chinese wont be able to afford sky high oil prices and may decide they would rather side with the west.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chris Pook on November 06, 2006, 18:31:01
I found it interesting that Tehran was claiming during their recent missile test/show-of-strength that they had cluster munitions for their IRBMs. It seems like an awfully expensive way to terrorize a civilian population - and a particularly ineffective one.  There is a relatively small number of vehicles, which give a fair amount of advance warning of their trajectory and target.  The SRBMs and Katyushas that Hezbollah was firing had limited effect because even with their relatively short times of flight, and an effective evacuation, their ball bearings didn't do much damage although they did shut down the economy.  Militarily they seem to have been of very limited value and I would guess that an IRBM with cluster munitions would be similarly disadvantaged.

So, is Tehran telling the truth about the cluster munitions?  In which case is the entire stunt a propaganda ploy to show Israel that it can reach out and touch them?  Is that necessary because Hezbollah's abilities to hit Israel HAVE been significantly degraded?  Does it indicate that Tehran doesn't yet have anything else to put on the IRBMs?  Or, more bothersome, is it a plausible excuse for developing and deploying long range capabilities without having to announce the nature of the warhead they actually intend to use? (ie They actually have or intend to have CBRN warheads but this allows them the fiction that the IRBMS are "conventional" weapons to keep the UN/US at bay a little longer.)

PS, interesting point about China tomahawk6.  Besides, if they destroy the US economy who is going to buy all the clothes and toys they are currently selling to the US (and us) at inflated prices.  China's wealth is as dependent on the US as Ontario's.  They sell labour - not resources.  No wealthy customers - no wealthy Chinese.

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: GAP on November 06, 2006, 18:32:36
High oil prices will spur soy diesel, ethanol, tar sands and coal liquification. Short term pain but long term gain. You have to remember that Iran is as dependent on oil revenue as we are to oil. The Chinese wont be able to afford sky high oil prices and may decide they would rather side with the west.

Or they just might decide to include Iran in their little retinue of countries they own.
Remember it does not have to be a Chinese face at the helm for them to be answerable to the Chinese.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: couchcommander on November 19, 2006, 02:25:32
No, but it is still commercial interest.  They are making money supporting Iran's reactors and selling the technology.

Indeed. For those who don't think Russia knows exactly what is going on, lest we forget:

(http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/images/esfahan-ik5.jpg)
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Apollo13 on November 30, 2006, 10:53:51
Just searching on Wikidpedia for information on Irans Military. Not a great source of Information, but all the same.....

What gets me is the reference to the peoples militia, or the Baseej......

Quote
It also has a people's militia called the Basij, or Baseej paramilitary volunteer forces. There are about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed Basij members and up to 300,000 reservists. The Basij can mobilize up to 11 million men and women


11'000'000 million people, that's alot of guns.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on November 30, 2006, 11:28:18
The Basij was actually the source of the children who led human wave attacks against the Iraqi's in the Iran Iraq war during the 1980's. Their primary purpose in today's Iran is to preach the twisted message of martyrdom and influence the upcoming generation of Iranians (which I suspect they can do with great success in rural Iran; in the cities people have access to outside media and influences, hence the recent crack downs on everything from radios to fashion). With such a large and indoctrinated base, the Theocracy has the ability to crack down on internal dissidents and the Basji would also be a source of recruits for any insurgency raised by the theocracy after their overthrow (from any cause).

Google Basji and learn more

Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Thucydides on December 07, 2006, 16:50:20
Luckily we have one ally who NEVER rests and always contributes (although sometimes it is difficult to see the direct results, the indirect approach is often favored): Adam Smith!

The mismanagement of the oil industry by the State reduces the overall financial position of Iran, and I would expect there are a lot of knock off and follow through effects throughout the economy which compound the problem. Iran's leadership does not have full access to the economic resources they desire to fulfill their goals (including becoming regional Hegemons and destroying Israel), and the fact it is self inflicted makes it even better. Maybe we don't need to "Light up the sky" if "we" in the West can maintain our patience and resolve for a few more years in Iraq and Afghanistan. A close read of the article indicates several possible pressure points, including petrolium inports to Iran(!), disinvensting in companies which deal with Iran and putting immediate financial pressure on internal spending which is designed to promote loyalty to the regime (or at least keep people quiet).

http://www.businessweek.com/print/globalbiz/content/nov2006/gb20061130_396971.htm

Quote
Surprise: Oil Woes In Iran
Flagging output from its vast reserves could diminish Tehran's influence
by Stanley Reed

Few countries can match Iran in its ability to generate angst among Westerners. It appears determined to become a nuclear power. Tehran's Islamic leaders aid radical groups across the Middle East. And as the U.S. gets bogged down in Iraq, Iran's influence in the region is on the rise, fueled in large part by its vast energy wealth.

Yet Iran has a surprising weakness: Its oil and gas industry, the lifeblood of its economy, is showing serious signs of distress. As domestic energy consumption skyrockets, Iran is struggling to produce enough oil and gas for export. Unless Tehran overhauls its policies, its primary source of revenue and the basis of its geopolitical muscle could start to wane. Within a decade, says Saad Rahim, an analyst at Washington consultancy PFC Energy, "Iran's net crude exports could fall to zero."

That's not to say Iran doesn't have abundant resources. The country's 137 billion barrels of oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's, and its supply of gas trails only Russia's, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Getting it all out of the ground, though, is another matter. Iran has been producing just 3.9 million barrels of oil a day this year, 5% below its OPEC quota, because of delays in new projects and a shortage of technical skills. By contrast, in 1974, five years before the Islamic Revolution, Iran pumped 6.1 million barrels daily.

The situation could get even tougher for the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC), which is responsible for all of Iran's output. Without substantial upgrades in facilities, production at Iran's core fields, several of which date from the 1920s, could go into a precipitous decline. In September, Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh suggested that with no new investment, output from Iran's fields would fall by about 13% a year, roughly twice the rate that outside oil experts had expected. "NIOC is likely to find that even maintaining the status quo is a mounting challenge," says PFC Energy's Rahim.

STATE HANDOUTS

Iran's looming crisis is the result of years of neglect and underinvestment. As in other oil-producing countries such as Venezuela and Mexico, the government treats the oil industry as a cash cow, milking its revenues for social programs. It allocates only $3 billion a year for investment, less than a third of what's needed to get production growing again.

Compounding the pressure are policies that encourage profligate energy use. Gasoline prices are set at 35 cents a gallon, which has helped fuel 10%-plus annual growth in consumption, PFC Energy figures. The national thirst for gasoline far outstrips domestic refining capacity, so Iran will import about $5 billion in gasoline this year, or about 40% of its needs. The government is planning a $16 billion refinery building program to boost capacity by 60%. But unless Iran raises fuel prices, the new plants will just mean more consumption.

An oil squeeze could spell trouble for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The populist leader has won backing at home through generous handouts. Ahmadinejad has ratcheted up public spending this year by 21%, to $213 billion, on everything from aid to rural areas to housing loans for newlyweds. He has also promised some $16 billion in outlays from a special $30 billion fund set up to tide Iranians through future hard times. Without a healthy oil sector, Iran's social spending could bust the national budget--and reignite inflation.

Iran badly needs fresh foreign investment to shore up the oil industry. Tehran has attracted some $20 billion in funding for oil and gas projects since 1995 from overseas companies including Royal Dutch/Shell Group (RD), France's Total (TOT), and Norway's Statoil. But new investment has largely dried up in recent years because of lingering worries about the risk of war with the U.S. and disenchantment with Iran's tightfisted terms. Outsiders are offered contracts only to drill wells--rather than operate fields--and get just a small share of profits from output. For instance, Italian oil giant ENI (ENI), a fixture in Iran since 1957, produces about 35,000 barrels per day but doesn't expect to get any bigger. "Unless international sanctions are imposed on Iran and the Italian government directs ENI to abide by them, we are committed to staying," says ENI Chief Executive Paolo Scaroni. "However, in order to increase our presence there, contractual terms for oil companies need to change."

Endless haggling and delays have set back some of Iran's biggest oil initiatives. One top priority had been the Azagedan field in southern Iran, which is expected eventually to produce 260,000 barrels a day. But in October, Tehran scrapped a $2 billion contract, agreed to in 2004, with Japan's Inpex to develop the project. And Shell's $800 million Soroush/Nowrooz project in the Persian Gulf has been plagued by cost overruns and technical glitches. In January, meanwhile, Statoil wrote down the entire $329 million book value of its South Pars project because of "productivity and quality problems" with a local contractor.

GLACIAL PACE

It's not just oil that Iran is failing to exploit. The glacial pace of negotiations is also making it fall behind neighboring Qatar in exploiting the huge offshore gas field that the two countries share. While Qatar has signed up the likes of ExxonMobil (XOM) and Shell to develop the site, Iran's talks with Total and Shell have progressed far more slowly. Iran is now a net importer of gas, a situation not expected to reverse before 2010.

Foreign energy companies are lobbying the Iranians to change. Executives say they would like longer contracts, which would give them more control and might boost returns. But progress is slow as many Iranian officials are reluctant to give foreigners terms that might be judged too favorable. "There are indications of movement, but how far and how deep it goes is anyone's guess," an oil executive says.

Can Iran fix its energy conundrum? Some experts are betting Tehran will get its act together sooner rather than later. Iran was able to boost production from 1.2 million barrels a day during the 1980-88 war with Iraq to nearly 4 million barrels with almost no foreign help, notes Bijan Khajepour, chairman of Tehran's Atieh Bahar Consulting, which advises oil companies. He thinks Iran should be able to sustain current production for the next decade. Even so, if Tehran doesn't face up to the woes of its oil industry, Iran may find itself in the unusual position of sharing the West's angst over growing dependence on imported oil.

with Babak Pirouz in Tehran

Reed is London bureau chief for BusinessWeek.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on December 13, 2006, 00:46:51
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1165964526796&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home


 
Israel will be 'wiped out': Ahmadinejad
Dec. 12, 2006. 10:43 PM


TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's hardline president said Tuesday that Israel will be one day be "wiped out" just like the Soviet Union was, drawing applause from participants in a world conference casting doubt on the Nazi Holocaust during the Second World War.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were likely to further fuel the outcry sparked by his hosting of the two-day gathering, which has gathered some of Europe and the United States' most well-known Holocaust deniers.
Anger over the conference could have political fallout, further isolating Iran and prompting a harder line from the West, which is considering sanctions against Tehran in the standoff of its nuclear program.

But Ahmadinejad appeared to revel in his meeting Tuesday with the conference delegates, shaking hands with American delegates and sitting near six anti-Israeli Jewish participants, dressed in black ultra-Orthodox coats and hats.
Ahmadinejad repeated predictions that Israel will be "wiped out," a phrase he first used in a speech in October, raising a firestorm of international criticism.
"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad told the participants during Tuesday's meeting in his offices, according to the official IRNA news agency.

He said elections should be held among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."
"By the grace of God, the arc of the Zionist regime's life has reversed and is heading downward. This is a divine promise and the public demand of all nations of the world," he said, bringing applause from the delegates.
Ahmadinejad has used anti-Israeli rhetoric and comments casting doubt on the Holocaust to rally anti-western supporters at home and abroad, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. Several times he has referred to the Holocaust as a "myth" used to impose the state of Israel on the Arab world.

Ahmadinejad announced that the conference had decided to set up a ``fact-finding commission" determine whether the Holocaust happened or not. The commission will "help end a 60-year-old dispute," the president said.

He called on Western governments "not to harrass members of this commission and allow them to carry out more research and make all issues transparent."
The Tehran conference was touted by participants and organizers as an exercise in academic free expression, a chance to openly consider whether six million Jews really died in the Holocaust far from laws in several European countries that ban questioning some details of the Nazi genocide during the Second World War.
It gathered 67 writers and researchers from 30 countries, most of whom argue that either the Holocaust did not happen or was vastly exaggerated. Many had been jailed or fined in France, Germany or Austria, which have criminalized Holocaust denial.

Participants milled around a model of the Auschwitz concentration camp brought by one speaker, Australian Frederick Toben, who uses the mock-up in lectures contending that the camp was too small to kill mass numbers of Jews. More than one million people are estimated to have been killed there.
"This conference has an incredible impact on Holocaust studies all over the world," said American David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and former state representative in Louisiana.
"The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder," Duke told The Associated Press.

Rabbi Moshe David Weiss, one of six members attending from the group Jews United Against Zionism, told delegates in his address, ``We don't want to deny the killing of Jews in Second World War, but Zionists have given much higher figures for how many people were killed."
"They have used the Holocaust as a device to justify their oppression," he said. His group rejects the creation of Israel on the grounds that it violates Jewish religious law.

The semi-official news agency ISNA said that the fact-finding commission announced by the conference would be led by an Iranian and include members from France, Bahrain, Austria, Canada, the United States, Syria and Switzerland. It did not name the members but it appeared they would be drawn from the conference participants.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday that the conference was "shocking beyond belief" and called the conference ``a symbol of sectarianism and hatred."

He said he saw little hope of engaging Iran in constructive action in the Middle East, saying, "I look around the region at the moment, and everything Iran is doing is negative."
In Washington, the White House condemned Iran for convening a conference it called "an affront to the entire civilized world."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined the chorus of world leaders condemning the conference.
"On behalf of the government of Canada, I want to condemn, in the strongest terms, this latest example of anti-Israeli and racist statements from the president of Iran," Harper said in a statement.

Harper added the conference is an offence to all Canadians.

Its almost time for the head shot.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: warspite on December 24, 2006, 02:01:39

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/23/un-iran.html (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/23/un-iran.html)
Quote
UN imposes sanctions on Iran
Last Updated: Saturday, December 23, 2006 | 4:23 PM ET
CBC News
Following two months of debate, the UN Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday to impose sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program.

The resolution — the latest version drafted on Friday by Britain, France and Germany — aims to stop Iran from enriching uranium, which could be used to build nuclear weapons.

Javad Zarif, Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, said his country's nuclear program is peaceful.
(Frank Franklin II/Associated Press) It orders all countries to ban the sale of technology and materials that could be used in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. If Iran refuses to comply, the resolution warns the country that the council will adopt further non-military sanctions.

Shortly after the vote was announced, Iran rejected the resolution and said it would continue enriching uranium.

"Bringing Iran's peaceful nuclear program to the council by a few of its permanent members, particularly the United States, is not aimed at, nor will it help, seeking the solution or encouraging negotiations," said Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations.

Talks about possible sanctions began after Iran ignored an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend enrichment.

Continue Article

Support for the resolution from China and Russia, two of the 15 council members, was in question heading into Saturday's vote. The initial draft was watered down during negotiations, mainly to win Russia's vote. Russia is building a reactor for a nuclear power plant in southern Iran.

Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, outlined his country's position before the crucial vote.

"Activities which are completely legal, valid and have nothing to do with the risk of non-proliferation can be conducted without any hindrance or interference."

Churkin said Moscow agreed to sanctions because it wanted Iran "to lift remaining concerns over its nuclear program."

He stressed that the goal must be to resume talks. If Iran suspends enrichment and reprocessing, the resolution calls for a suspension of sanctions, "which would pave the way for a negotiated solution," Churkin said.

And so the die is cast.... wonder how it will turn out.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Freddy G on December 24, 2006, 02:16:18
I guess they prefer being able to say "we told Iran not to do it" rather than know what's going on... Heh, maybe when Tel Aviv sees a second sunrise, followed soon after by Tehran, they'll realize just pointing an accusatory finger at Iran wasn't such a good idea.
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 13, 2007, 21:43:28
EYEING IRAN
By RALPH PETERS

January 6, 2007 -- WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region, baffled the media.

Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations? - There's a one-word answer: Iran.

ASSIGNING a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.  While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world. In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects - requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.) Not only did Adm. Fallon command a carrier air wing during Operation Desert Storm, he also did shore duty at a joint headquarters in Saudi Arabia. He knows the complexity and treacherousness of the Middle East first-hand. STRENGTHENING his qualifications, numerous blue-water assignments and his duties at PACOM schooled him on the intricacies of the greater Indian Ocean - the key strategic region for the 21st-century and the one that would be affected immediately by a U.S. conflict with Iran. The admiral also understands China's junkie-frantic oil dependency and its consequent taste for geopolitical street-crime. During a U.S. operation against Iran, Beijing would need its fix guaranteed. While Congress obsesses on Iraq and Iraq alone, the administration's thinking about the future. And it looks as if the White House is preparing options to mitigate a failure in Iraq and contain Iran. Bush continues to have a much-underrated strategic vision - the administration's consistent problems have been in the abysmal execution of its policies, not in the over-arching purpose. Now, pressed by strategic dilemmas and humiliating reverses, Bush is doing what FDR had to do in the dark, early months of 1942: He's turning to the Navy. As a  retired Army officer, I remain proud of and loyal to my service. I realize that the Army's leaders are disappointed to see the CentCom slot go to an admiral in the midst of multiple ground wars. But, beyond the need for a Navy man at the helm should we have to take on Iran, there's yet another reason for sending Fallon to his new assignment: The Army's leadership has failed us at the strategic level.
After Gen. Eric Shinseki was sidelined for insisting on a professional approach to Iraq, Army generals did plenty of fine tactical and operational work - but they never produced a strategic vision for the greater Middle East. Our Army is deployed globally, but our generals never seem to acquire the knack of thinking beyond the threat hypnotizing them at the moment (the Marines, with their step-brother ties to the Navy, do a better job of acting locally while thinking globally). Perhaps the Army's Gen. Dave Petraeus will emerge as an incisive strategic thinker after he takes command in Baghdad, but his predecessors routinely got mired in tactical details and relied - fatally - on other arms of government to do the strategic thinking. The reasons are complex, ranging from service culture to educational traditions, but it's incontestable that the Navy long has produced our military's best strategic thinkers - captains and admirals able to transcend parochial interests to see the global security environment as a whole. Adm. Fallon's job is to avoid the tyranny of the moment, to see past the jumble of operational pieces and visualize how those pieces ultimately might fit together. NOR is the Iran problem the only Navy-first issue facing CENTCOM. As you read this, our ships are patrolling the coast of Somalia to intercept fleeing terrorists - and have been hunting pirates in the same waters for years. China's future development (and internal peace) is tied to dependable supplies of Middle-Eastern and African oil transiting Indian-Ocean sea lanes, as well as to shipping goods along the same routes. In a future confrontation with China, our ability to shut down the very routes we're now challenged to protect would be vital. Not least because of the botch-up in Iraq, there's a growing sense of the limitations of U.S. ground-force involvement in the Middle East. That doesn't mean we won't see further necessity-driven interventions and even other occupations, only that our strategic planners have begun to grasp that positive change in the region - if it comes at all - is going to take far longer than many of us hoped and won't always be amenable to boots-on-the-ground prodding. If we can't determine everything that happens in the Big Sandbox, we need to be able to control access to and from the playground - a classic Navy mission. And in the end the United States remains primarily a maritime power. As Sir Walter Raleigh pointed out 400 years ago, he who controls the waters controls the world.
   

Gen. Petraeus is going to Baghdad to deal with our present problems. Adm. Fallon is going to the U.S. Central Command to deal with the future.

 
Title: Re: Iran Super Thread- Merged
Post by: Chris Pook on January 14, 2007, 00:12:24
Quote
Iran leader's nuke diplomacy questioned By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jan 13, 2:42 PM ET


TEHRAN, Iran - Conservatives and reformists are openly challenging President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hard-line nuclear diplomacy — an unusual agreement across        Iran's political spectrum, with many saying his provocative remarks have increasingly isolated their country.

 
The criticism comes after the        U.N. Security Council voted unanimously last month to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment. Some critics view the sanctions as an indication that Iran must change its policy.

After a year of silence, reformists are demanding that Iran dispel fears that it is seeking to build atomic weapons, pressing for a return to former President        Mohammad Khatami's policy of suspending enrichment, a process that can produce the material for either nuclear reactors or bombs.

"Resisting the U.N. Security Council resolution will put us in a more isolated position," said the Islamic Iran Participation Front, the largest reformist party.

Ahmadinejad's popularity already was weakened after his close conservative allies were defeated last month in local elections, which were widely seen as a referendum on his 18 months in power.

Even some conservatives warn his confrontational tactics are backfiring.

"Your language is so offensive ... that it shows that the nuclear issue is being dealt with a sort of stubbornness," the hard-line daily Jomhuri-e-Eslami said in a recent editorial.

Some lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum are considering impeaching Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki if the Security Council approves more resolutions against Iran.

"That all 15 members of the Security Council unanimously voted, against the claim by our diplomatic apparatus that there was no unanimity against Iran, shows the weakness of our diplomatic apparatus," said Noureddin Pirmoazzen, a reformist lawmaker.

Despite the criticism, Ahmadinejad has remained defiant, escalating Iran's nuclear standoff with the United States and its allies. He has repeatedly refused to suspend enrichment, even under pressure from its trade allies Russia and China. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, denying allegations from the U.S. and its allies that it is secretly trying to build a bomb.

On Saturday, Ahmadinejad met with fellow U.S. critic Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the start of a Latin America tour — his second such visit in four months. Critics say the trip was partly aimed at diverting attention from the disapproval at home.

Ahmadinejad has also distanced some of his conservative base by calling for        Israel to be "wiped off the map" and hosting a conference last month that cast doubt on the Holocaust