Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March

Paul Hotflush

techno head
geto.blast said:
Is anyone going to call Israel on the double-standard seeing as they have a huge undeclared Nukes arsenal... or would that be anti-semetic?[/url]

Yes but the Israelis aren't going to nuke New York or hold the west to nuke/oil ransom.

If Israel didn't have the bomb we'd be in trouble. Despite all the diplomatic faffing, the main thing getting me to sleep at night is the thought that there's no way Israel will stand for Iran getting the bomb.
 
Last edited:
D

droid

Guest
Yes but the Israelis aren't going to nuke New York or hold the west to nuke/oil ransom.

No - just Baghdad, or Damascus, or Tehran.. but Id guess you regard the threat to those cities as legitimate..


Paul Hotflush said:
If Israel didn't have the bomb we'd be in trouble. Despite all the diplomatic faffing, the main thing getting me to sleep at night is the thought that there's no way Isreali will stand for Iran getting the bomb.

So - to get this straight... Thoughts of imminent (and possibly nuclear) attacks against a Muslim nation in one of the most politically volatile regions of the world helps you sleep at night?

That explains a lot...
 
D

droid

Guest
Paul Hotflush said:
In isolation, none. But then none of those countries is talking about destroying a state, unlike Iran.

Uh-huh. Theyre generally too busy actually destroying societies (Iraqi/Palestinian/Kurdish) to bother with threats and posturing...

In response to clappa's question. Might = Right - thats the no. 1 rule of geopolitics... International law be damned!
 
O

Omaar

Guest
In the Telegraph on Sunday:

"Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months.""

full article
 

Padraig

Banned
Iran Update
--------------------------------------
As Iranbodycount publishes its findings Iran Consequences Of War: "This briefing paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the likely nature of US or Israeli military action that would be intended to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities. It outlines both the immediate consequences in terms of loss of human life, facilities and infrastructure, and also the likely Iranian responses, which would be extensive", a US poll [Americans think Iran may use nukes] reports that eight out of 10 respondents predicted Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists to attack the United States or Israel. Six out of 10 respondents said Iran itself would deploy nuclear weapons against the United States ... as Ray McGovern asks Who Will Blow the Whistle Before We Attack Iran? - With no perceptible demurral from inside the government, George W. Bush launched a war of aggression, defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal as "the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"-like torture, for example.

[... John Pilger [Iran: the next war]: "Has Tony Blair, our minuscule Caesar, finally crossed his Rubicon? Having subverted the laws of the civilised world and brought carnage to a defenceless people and bloodshed to his own, having lied and lied and used the death of a hundredth British soldier in Iraq to indulge his profane self-pity, is he about to collude in one more crime before he goes." ...]

Then there's former UK Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, who has recently said [Iran may need force, warns Hurd]
that Britain cannot "realistically" rule out using military force against Iran over its nuclear programme.

Then there's Russia: Amid the escalating crisis around Iran's nuclear programme, Russia said last week [Russia confirms missile defence contract with Iran] that it will still arm Tehran with missiles that can secure nuclear facilities from attacks ... while Russian political expert Mikhail Delyagin [Russian Political Expert Predicts US Missile Attack on Iran] speculates that the U.S. will launch a missile attack against Iran this summer ... as Russia voices strong opposition to sanctions against Iran [Russian Foreign Minister voiced here Wednesday his country's strong opposition to any possible sanctions against Iran] ... as Russia Warns U.S. Against Striking Iran : Russia's top military chief today warned the United States against launching a military strike against Iran and a top diplomat voiced hope that close cooperation with China could help resolve the Tehran nuclear crisis.

Then there's China: China said last week [China welcomes Iran-Russia nuclear talks] that it welcomed talks between Iran and Russia next week on plans to defuse the crisis over Tehran's atomic programme, but refused to say whether it would join the meeting.

And Iran's responses: Ahmadinejad vows [Iran poised to retaliate against UN referral] his country will continue on the road to victory, labels Bush warmonger who should be put on trial, while Iranian Vice President Esfandyar Rahim Mashaee said [Iran dismisses US threat over nukes] "We are not afraid of attacks by the United States or by other countries on Iran's nuclear installations
because we have nothing to hide, we have no installations
to produce nuclear weapons." ... as Iran resumes enrichment work: "Iran has continued its nuclear drive within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the NPT, but if we see that you want to deprive us of our right using these regulations, know that the people will revise their policy in this regard," Ahmadinejad said.


And the US/Israeli responses: [Mofaz: Iran combining radical platform with nuclear weapons - danger for Israel] ... Pimping a war [IDF Intelligence Chief claims Iran Implementing Concrete Plan to Destroy Israel] ... as US threatens Iran with new sanctions: Threatening new sanctions, the United States accused Iran on Wednesday of defying the world by resuming uranium enrichment for nuclear fuel without resolving suspicions it secretly wants to build atomic bombs ... meanwhile Rice Says Iran Is Openly Defying The World : Speaking at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rice said Washington is examining the full range of possible punitive sanctions on Iran, as she asks for $75M to foster democracy in Iran: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress on Wednesday for $75 million this year to build democracy in Iran, saying the U.S. must support Iranians who are seeking freedoms under what she called a radical regime. Another U.S. Coup In Iran? ... In a private meeting with European diplomats this week, a former senior U.S. official raised the idea of launching a dozen B2 bombers in an air raid aimed at crippling key Iranian nuclear facilities ...

... continued in following post ...
 

Padraig

Banned
Iran Update [continued]

Elsewhere, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says [Facing a potential nuclear holocaust at the hands of Iran] the United States must do everything in its power to bring about regime change there, even if it means invading that nation ... as the World Jewish Congress launches a campaign against Iran [World Jewish Congress launches anti-Iran campaign] following the nuclear crisis and the anti-Semitic statements of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Further, the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a resolution [House condemns Iran's nuclear program ] condemning Iran for its nuclear program, and urging the international community to apply sanctions to deny it the ability to develop atomic weapons ... Moreover, Bush now planning huge propaganda campaign in Iran: The Bush administration made an emergency request to Congress yesterday for a seven-fold increase in funding to mount the biggest ever propaganda campaign against the Tehran government, in a further sign of the worsening crisis between Iran and the west ... and US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites: "This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months ... and again, Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn: Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists ... as the propaganda persists: Pentagon plans to derail Iranian atomic bomb test - Iran has drawn up designs for a deep underground tunnel with remote-controlled heat and pressure sensors as part of what Western intelligence officials believe are preparations for a secret atomic test.


The French response: Propaganda ? France accuses Iran over nukes: The French foreign minister has accused Iran of pursuing a clandestine military nuclear programme ... while French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy branded Iran's nuclear programme [Selling a war?: Iran nuclear programme is 'military']for the first time today as a "clandestine, military" project.


According to Mike Kress [The Urgency of Now: Stopping the War on Iran], the neo-cons will use their tool at the UN, Ambassador John Bolton, to help create an international crisis and thereby justify attacks on Iran. Though there's no evidence to prove that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, Iran's refusal to halt its lawful nuclear programs will become the pretext for America's next unnecessary war. And Thomas Harding argues ['10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran]: More than 100 American bombers, many based on carriers in the Gulf, would take part in a huge simultaneous surprise air attack on 20 key nuclear and military facilities.

Finally, Amnesty condemns Iran's treatment of ethnic minorities : The administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has come under severe criticism from Amnesty International in a report entitled "New government fails to address dire human rights situation", which was published this week.

---------------------------
hiroshima.1.jpg


The Wind Will Carry Us: 31st March 2006 - Iran's Nuclear Meltdown?
 

corneilius

Well-known member
Basis for war in Irq and next, Iran

Here's a fine article explaining the motivation behind these and other wars.

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1389

The nuts and bolts are this - in 2000 iraq announced they were going to start trading their Oil in Euros, creating an alternative to the US dollar which was then, and still is, the ONLY currency you could buy Oil in - hence every country HAS to have US dollar reserves to ensure they have supply of Oil.

Iran are due to start trading Oil in Euro's on March 20th ....... oh dear! It seems that quite a lot of countries want to trade in Euros, to have an alternative to the US dollar ... which would over time devalue the dollar, causing US imports to become expensive, and US exports to become cheap...........

Do read the article, it's very informative, draws on the history of the US dollar as a global currency, the link between the UK and the US who control the International Petroleum Exchange and the abandonment of the use of the gold standard to peg currency values.

Venezuela, an Oil exorter is also on the US hitlist, though they cannot label it a terrorist state like they did Irq and Iran and North Korea ........

Oh by the way the justifications for these wars, such as the 'war on drugs'. the 'war on terror', the 'real' fear of Iraqi/Iranian WMD, bringing Freedom and Democracy to the Middle East, and the inclusion of North Korea in the 'axis of evil' was just a standard advertising pr ploy, propaganda if you will. The fact that it has worked for so long should worry us, as in how have our minds been so conditioned to believe this tripe? To ignore the very real hurt, damage and death caused by these wars fought for 'our own good'?

Easy to blame the war mongerers, harder to face the responsibility that WE LET THEM DO IT FOR SO LONG!
 
Last edited:
D

droid

Guest
corneilius said:
Here's a fine article explaining the motivation behind these and other wars.

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1389

The nuts and bolts are this - in 2000 iraq announced they were going to start trading their Oil in Euros, creating an alternative to the US dollar which was then, and still is, the ONLY currency you could buy Oil in - hence every country HAS to have US dollar reserves to ensure they have supply of Oil.

Iran are due to start trading Oil in Euro's on March 20th ....... oh dear! It seems that quite a lot of countries want to trade in Euros, to have an alternative to the US dollar ... which would over time devalue the dollar, causing US imports to become expensive, and US exports to become cheap...........

Hmm.. this is only one aspect of a very complex situation. Bottomline, the US is not going to attack Iran over a change to Euro... it simply cant do it. They're fairly fucked as it is considering the disintergration of Iraq, and the rise of the left in Latin America, so, important as it may be, theyre not going to start a suicidal war over something like this...

I hate to agree with Craner on this, but there really is scant possibilty of any kind of major military attck against Iran in the near future... subversion/coercion/infiltration... all options (and probably happening as we speak - see Condis recent rejected donation of $20 mil to Syrias dissident democrats), but war is out of the question, tactically, politically and economically.

The US simply does not attack strong enemies...
 
D

droid

Guest
Oh the sheer hypocrisy of it all!

U.S., India finalize nuclear deal

The U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh finalized a historic nuclear power deal after Thursday’s talks in New Delhi, BBC reported.

Under the agreement, the U.S. will share its civilian nuclear technology with India, even though New Delhi won’t sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In return, India will have to separate its military nuclear program and open its civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection.

The deal represents a major shift in the policy of the U.S., which imposed temporary sanctions on India in 1988 after it concluded nuclear tests.

Speaking at a joint press conference after the talks, Bush called the nuclear deal a “historic agreement”.

The American President also acknowledged that it may be difficult to sell the agreement to the U.S. congress, which has to endorse it. But he insisted that "It's a necessary agreement. It's one that will help both our peoples.”

Singh said that New Delhi had finalized a plan to separate its military and civilian nuclear facilities, a move necessary for the deal to be implemented.

Most Indians oppose the U.S.-India nuclear deal, and had been urging the government to cancel it.

Communist parties and Muslim groups are opposed to Bush’s visit to India, and are leading protests across the country.

A meeting of the Indian parliament has been delayed after MPs from communist and socialist parties organized a sit-in to protest Bush’s visit.

Tens of thousands of people have also gathered at a large ground in New Delhi. On Wednesday, more than 100,000 protesters, mainly Muslims, rallied at the same venue.

Thousands of Indians also held a demonstration in the eastern city of Calcutta in a protest organized by 30 leftist groups.

The protesters carried placards that read: "Bully Bush, Go Home," and chanted "Death to Bush."

Many Indians oppose the U.S.’s foreign policy, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. India, a predominantly Hindu nation of more than 1 billion people, has the world’s second-largest population of Muslims.

During his visit, President Bush will also go to the southern city of Hyderabad, one of India's high-technology hubs.

The U.S. President will go to neighboring Pakistan on Saturday, where he says he will mediate between Islamabad and New Delhi in resolving the decades-long Kashmir dispute.

On Thursday morning, an explosion took place near the U.S. consulate in the Pakistani capital, Karachi, killing more than four people, including an American working at the consulate.

But Bush said the attack in Karachi won’t prevent him from traveling to Pakistan.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10699
 
O

Omaar

Guest
18 March International day of action:

Troops home from Iraq, Don't attack Iran.

Is putting Iran on the agenda like this really a good idea for the Anti-war movement? I'd have thought introducing the topic of Iran at this point would shift the debate towards a dichotomy of should we/shouldn't we attack Iran, which is exactly what certain parties desire, no? That is, as soon as people start saying: "don't attack Iran" people will start thinking that maybe we should be attacking Iran. Or will it just raise awareness?
 

Padraig

Banned
Omaar said:
18 March International day of action:

Troops home from Iraq, Don't attack Iran.

Is putting Iran on the agenda like this really a good idea for the Anti-war movement? I'd have thought introducing the topic of Iran at this point would shift the debate towards a dichotomy of should we/shouldn't we attack Iran, which is exactly what certain parties desire, no? That is, as soon as people start saying: "don't attack Iran" people will start thinking that maybe we should be attacking Iran. Or will it just raise awareness?

So, er, to following your line of reasoning: people should start saying, "attack Iran" and then people will start thinking that maybe we shouldn't be attacking Iran?? Or censor all discussion and debate and protest, while the hawks meanwhile proceed with their planned invasion???

Very illuminating ...
 
O

Omaar

Guest
Padraig said:
Or censor all discussion and debate and protest, while the hawks meanwhile proceed with their planned invasion???

Very illuminating ...

Yeah obviously that's what I meant.

Please illuminate me on why that's illuminating ...
 

Padraig

Banned
Omaar said:
Yeah obviously that's what I meant.

Please illuminate me on why that's illuminating ...


nothing-to-say-so-blog.gif


What is THAT which you obviously meant?

"I have nothing to say and I am saying it."
5.jpg

[Duchamp n' Cage]​
 
O

Omaar

Guest
Padraig - there's no need to be so glib and patronising.

I think it's reasonable to ask whether now, in terms of strategy, would be the best time for the anti war movement to introduce a debate on invading iran, in terms of the way this would interact with how things are currently being spun in the media. Anyway, the way things are being spun in the last week has turned markedly anway, with the coverage given to Bolton's remarks for instance - so perhaps the timing is almost right.

How you hypothetically extend my line of reasoning is sort of illogical anyhow.
 
Top