US will invade Iran in '06

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anyway.. just going through the possibilites.

I agree, things could possibly get hairy, no doubt. But at the same time, perhaps you could go through the possiblities of a nuclear exchange between Iran, Israel, and whomever else enters the fray. What outcomes or escalations could you foresee in that event?

It's called Armageddon.

Originally posted by 27jd
I don't side with Israel on this. But their fingers are on a hair trigger, and a nuclear Iran would almost ensure a nuclear war between the two, the religious hatred is so deep

Just like Israel's nukes ensure Iran's desire to arm itself against a possible first-strike. If Bush can do it, why not Israel? Why not any other country for that matter?

The whole thing is insane. I guess humanity is insanity. Dog eat dog and all that...

Originally posted by Seekerof
The sources are against you on this, ECK, and have been, that is why you started pulling from truthout.org.

You, as with few others, can continue your uses of one way horse vision blinders, but Iran is in violation--non-compliance--with the NPT and that is per the IAEA, not just simply the EU or US.

So please, carry on with your deflection tactics, but it does not factually change what is, contrary to what you, and a few others, have blindly asserted.





seekerof

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Seekerof]

Oh, you actually came back on that.

Seekerof, everything you said in the run-up to the Iraq invasion has turned out to be completely wrong. Pardon me if I don't shine to your sources.

On the other hand, mine actually panned out. How bout that?

By the way, Seekerof,

: Originally posted by Seekerof
The sources are against you on this, ECK, and have been, that is why you started pulling from truthout.org.

The sources are against me? How can that be? I have not taken any position on this issue. I have only commented on sources I've read.

There's nothing here to even attack.

Get some rest, Seekerof.

Originally posted by 27jd
Other than nuke envy, what hardships will Iran endure if they don't get nuclear weapons? They've already been offered a deal to be able to peacefully generate nuclear power, and they turned it down. ECK, I am just wondering if you personally think it's worth the chance of nuclear war in the ME, and possibly even worse, to be fair with nukes? And also, where should the line be drawn? I'm sure every nation can give you a good reason they think they need nukes.

We are so first world!

The chance of nookleer war in the mid-east? It's there. It's been bubbling and boiling our whole lives. Where have you been?

Where should the line be drawn? I think the line should be drawn at a nation's borders. If they are hostile, then let a council of surrounding nations coalesce to shut down the threat. If the are not hostile to surrounding nations, then let them be.

At this point, I love my country, but I think we're bullies.

I hate to say that.

But I also hate the fact that my government is pissing diplomacy away b/c they have cool bombs. The Bush administration desperately wants a "war" with Iran. It's good for their business. Who cares what's good for "our" country. BushCo. has no desire to work this thing out with Iran peacefully. That's why their being so belligerent.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
It's called Armageddon.

Exactly. That's why I'm not loving the idea of Iran getting nukes, fairness be damned. I'm pretty attached to this whole "living" thing, and I'm sure the millions of innocent Iranians and Israelis going about their lives are too.

I really don't like our governments, any of them.

But I also hate the fact that my government is pissing diplomacy away b/c they have cool bombs. The Bush administration desperately wants a "war" with Iran.

Actually, this is what Bush said today....

After talks in Washington with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr Bush said both leaders sought to solve the issue "diplomatically by working together".

Asked if he expected sanctions to be imposed on Iran, Mr Bush said he was "not going to prejudge what the United Nations Security Council should do".

news.bbc.co.uk...

Doesn't seem like he wants to piss diplomacy away really, I guess time will tell if he just wants to get that part of the process out of the way.

At this point, I love my country, but I think we're bullies.

Countries do that. There wouldn't even BE countries if it weren't for economic bullying. The social/economic/governmental system of a nation is predicated on land ownership, which goes back to feudalism. A person or group of people (not the whole of those living on the land) declare themselves owners of the land by virtue of military might. Now you can no longer live on the land for free, so you need money. Now you've got to get a job, so can't fend for yourself or even barter, because land ownership has ushered in capital- you become reliant on the social and economic order which the governors have set up, and you have to do what they say. You will do your job for their benefit and pay your taxes, or you will starve or freeze in the streets. You will obey their decrees, or you will go to jail and be tortured (they get the inmates to do the dirty work these days, but it's the same game). You will fall in line and follow orders for their wars, or it's treason. Now we've got democracy- so instead of falling in line and following orders you can vote in new bullies, and nothing will really change, but maybe they'll go somewhere else and fight the war more quietly at least.

Early Economy>Military>Nationhood>Bigger Economy>Social Structure/Government>Economic Programs>Stronger Government>More Military>Wars>Stronger Government>Civil Disorder> Democracy>New Government>New Economic Programs>Stronger New Government>New Wars>New Civil Disorder>Elect a New Government>etc etc etc


We live within a centuries-old framework of bully-government-implemented economic exploitation, and truth be told, over the generations we've come to like it. Most of us don't understand that we're under it or that we like it though, we think it's just how things are because it's what we were born into, which leaves the door open to emotional appeals by powerful individuals who would like to assume the reigns of government and bully for their own ends. And some of us get all bent out of shape a very shallow realization of what bullies our governments are and want to install new bullies, perhaps not realizing that just by virtue of being the government they will have to become bullies as well.

I'm all for the notion that things can get better, that government can be less intrusive, less violent, etc etc. I never forget however that all rule is by force, and the world will never be fair. It's the world we've built for ourselves as humans- because we're the only species smart enough to be this friggin stupid- and we live in it happily as often as not. There will be wars, and there will be injustices, and sometimes, when those injustices and wars have utility to the majority, sometimes we just have to accept them as the drawback to the system that we have assented to by living in. We could all move out to the boondocks and live in the wild if we really rejected it- but we don't.

A war with Iran would be of utility to the majority if peaceful options failed. The problem isn't that we're going to war with Iran. The problem isn't even that we're bullies (which if we are, if we own responsibility for the governments we grudgingly decide to live under). The problem is only that this particular administration is going to do it wrong, for the extreme benefit of a very few, not for the preservation of many.

Thanks for reading- for those of you who are shocked to realize you kind of agree with me (there may be 1 of you) try not to kill yourselves- it's all very depressing when you first see it, but then you realize that this is the foundation of the world you've always lived happily in, and you just sort of spitefully accept it.

Bloody hell - When did this thread get so huge?

1. Can somebody please tell me how many cruise misiles Iran has, so if NATO forces in Europe attack them with cruise missiles, how mich damage can Iran inflict back with their cruise missiles.

2. Can someone please summarise this thread?
I know it's a big task, but there's some awfully talented people here

Iranian Missile Forces:
Iran has a large array of artillery rockets, varying in range and payload- the largest ones being FROG derivatives capable of carry warheads of 250kg, 500kg, and 850kg respectively, all in a 100-150km range. Many other types are for shorter ranges and payloads

Iran also has developed it's Shahab ballistic missiles from Scud-B and Scud-C designs, with help from North Korea and possibly Russia and China.
Shahab 3 and Shahab 4 are equivalent to the unforunately named "No Dong" and "Taepo Dong 1", respectively. 1300km and 2000km ranges.

They've got a Shahab 5 in the pipeline (I've heard it referred to as Kosar although I was under the impression that Kosar was their "stealth cruise missile") Shahab 5 will just be a Taepo-Dong II. There's talk about Russian SS-4 and SS-5 designs being the basis.

Their anti-ship missiles are Chinese made. Mostly of fairly short range. The large, ugly C-701 comes in TV and Radar guided variants, has a range of 25-35km if I recall correctly, and I think it can be fired from ship or air.

C-801/802 (supposedly exports were suspended in the 90s) have a range of 120km.

C-201 (NATO named SADSACK) could be available to them, and this reportedly would have its 150km range doubled to 300km with GPS guidance.

With access to the Chinese aresenal, we can reasonably expect Iran to have Seersucker cruise missiles- 100km range, 70% hit probability (supposedly).

Long story short, they've got a few, mostly 80s vintage Chinese, no figures on how many seem to be available. Some are almost useless because of their range unless Iranian FACs can successfully get within range, others could be a problem if fired in sufficient volume to overcome our ships defenses.

I've also heard Iran has the SS-22, although not many if I understand. SS-22 is a big deal. 120km range if I recall, and can defeat current defenses on our ships.

It's important to note that many of these missiles rely on assisstance from land-based installations for targeting, which means airstrikes could reduce their effectiveness.


Summary of Thread:

Well, I hate to be REALLY generic about such a large thread, but I'll try to sum up the discussion.

In a nut shell, we've talked about:
1. Will it happen? (discussion has decreased on that topic somewhat)

2. When would it happen? (Not heavily discussed- This Spring or sometime after the mid-term elections are what have been put forward)

3. Is it doable? (heavily discussed, not entirely ongoing)
Some say we can't handle another occupation. Some say we can. Some say we can't but an occupation isn't necessary, because we can handle it with bombs.

4. Is it a good idea? Some say we have bigger fish to fry at home and that another war would be very bad for us militarily, economically, and diplomatically. Others say this is of incredible global strategic/economic importance, with potential to start a full-blown nuclear war, and so must be dealt with.

5. Is it fair? Is Iran really a threat, or is this just an excuse for a war? Is Israel in any danger? Is that our concern? Is it right to keep Iran from getting the bomb before disarming Israel? Is the Iranian nuclear program illegal?

Obviously there have been other issues raised, a few skirmishes between members, lots of details, etc, but that's a rough list of the topics that were covered.

As for a digest of what has been said on those subjects- even that would have to be quite lengthy to be completely fair and give credit where credit is due.

27: i agree with you to an extent.
"We are without knowledge. We believe that science is knowledge, we are incorrect. Knowledge is knowing ourselves and truely understanding what we are inside. Knowledge isnt religion, science, or any other persons claim to understanding the universe, its your own understanding of yourself. Knowledge without science will bring us peace. Knowledge with science will bring us into a new age of civilization. But, sceince without knowledge will bring us doom."

peace can never be achived until we reach the next level of human conscience. we are too primitive for the sciences we have developed. in other words we are doomed because of our own false knowledge. knowledge makes a civilization, but the wrong knowledge will end it. unfortunately the science i talk of is nuclear sciences. weve become too advanced in science while never progressing as human beings. in this thought, yes we have doomed ourselves.

its possible to stop wars, but like a quote i heard "you want to advance as a race, i know thats not the case/
cause you cant even advance as individuals/"

edit:
vagabond: good summary of the thread and known missle stock pile of iran.


[edit on 14-1-2006 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by 27jd
Actually, this is what Bush said today....

After talks in Washington with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr Bush said both leaders sought to solve the issue "diplomatically by working together".

Asked if he expected sanctions to be imposed on Iran, Mr Bush said he was "not going to prejudge what the United Nations Security Council should do".

news.bbc.co.uk...

Doesn't seem like he wants to piss diplomacy away really, I guess time will tell if he just wants to get that part of the process out of the way.

Come on 27... if you recall, he "wanted" diplomacy to work with Iraq, as well. On these matters, Bush will say what his handlers tell him to say; and you can bet there's little truth in any of his public pronouncements. When it comes to those truly in charge of running the trains (Condi, Cheney, Rummy), those guys lie through teeth every time they're on camera. I thought the Clinton gang was bad. These folks make them look like college pranksters.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The problem is only that this particular administration is going to do it wrong, for the extreme benefit of a very few, not for the preservation of many.

Vagabond, you know me. You know I do not live under illusions.

On the above point, we clearly agree. That is precisely why I believe it would behoove us (and our EU-3) partners to solve this diplomatically.

Also, the Iranians probably understand this fully. Why else would they be shaking their collective fist at the west?

My hope is that rational heads in Washington prevail, and realize that any kind of military assault on Iran at this stage of the game, would be thoroughly unwise, if not outright idiotic.

Historians, among many other brilliant and experienced men and women are already calling the invasion of Iraq, the most horrific foreign policy mistake the United States has ever made. Do we really want to pour more gasoline on that fire - if it can be avoided?

Personally, I believe this cocky administration doesn't have the slightest interest in diplomacy, despite what they might say. Why should they, afterall? It is not their flesh on the line.

Here is a brief look at what Iran is capable of, as well a brief look at Syrian capabilities and connections. It seems as though many people choose (unwisely) to underestimate what Iran could be capable of, especially in conjuction with Syria. Again, I chalk that up (in large part) to a general misunderstanding, or uneducated view of that region. I hope this helps to paint a better picture of what we may be facing. Although, I believe the US and Israeli militaries are superior, I also work under the notion that we should take Iran and Syria (combined) very seriously. If the little bombing campaign wound up not working as envisioned by the PNAC crowd (as in Iraq), it could escalate into a full blown nuclear confrontation (with Israel); or a fully unwinnable ground war. That would set off a chain reaction of biblical proportions. It could also (finally) break US hegemony. There is nothing our enemies would love more than to see that happen.

Remember, in life, a wise man knows how to choose his battles, and when to save it for another day.

2. Iran's Armaments

Unlike Iraq, Iran has not spent the last fifteen years having its conventional forces worn down by grueling sanctions, repeated attacks, and two American-led wars. While Iran's conventional army is not what it was during the heyday of the Iran-Iraq war - their armaments have deteriorated and the veterans of that last war have retired - the nation enjoys substantial military strength nonetheless.

According to a report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in December of 2004, Iran "has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."

"Iran is now the only regional military power that poses a significant conventional military threat to Gulf stability," continued the CSIS report. "Iran has significant capabilities for asymmetric warfare, and poses the additional threat of proliferation. There is considerable evidence that it is developing both a long-range missile force and a range of weapons of mass destruction. It has never properly declared its holdings of chemical weapons, and the status of its biological weapons programs is unknown."

A MILNET brief issued in February 2005 reports, "Due to its position astride the Persian Gulf, Iran has constantly been a threat to the Gulf. The so called 'Tanker' wars in the late 1980s put Iran squarely in the bullseye of all nations seeking to transport oil out of the region. Even the small navy that Iran puts to sea is capable enough to harass shipping, and several cases of small boat operations against oil well heads in the Gulf during that period made it clear small asymmetrical tactics of the Iranian Navy could be quite effective."

"More concerning," continued the MILNET brief, "is the priority placed on expanding and modernizing its Navy. The CSIS report cites numerous areas where Iran has funded modernization including the most troublesome aspect, anti-shipping cruise missiles: 'Iran has obtained new anti-ship missiles and missile patrol craft from China, midget submarines from North Korea, submarines from Russia, and modern mines.'"

It is Iran's missile armaments that pose the greatest concern for American forces in the Gulf, especially for the US Navy. Iran's coast facing the Persian Gulf is a looming wall of mountains that look down upon any naval forces arrayed in those waters. The Gulf itself only has one exit, the Strait of Hormuz, which is also dominated by the mountainous Iranian coastline. In essence, Iran holds the high ground in the Gulf. Missile batteries arrayed in those mountains could raise bloody havoc with any fleet deployed below.

Of all the missiles in Iran's armament, the most dangerous is the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn. These missiles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach Mach 3 at high altitude. Its maximum low-altitude speed is Mach 2.2, some three times faster than the American-made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes two short minutes to cover its full range. The missile's manufacturers state that one or two missiles could cripple a destroyer, and five missiles could sink a 20,000 ton ship. The Sunburn is also superior to the Exocet missile. Recall that it was two Exocets that ripped the USS Stark to shreds in 1987, killing 37 sailors. The Stark could not see them to stop them.

The US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, with some 7,000 souls aboard. Sailing with the Roosevelt is the Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Force, which includes the USS Tarawa, the USS Austin, and the USS Pearl Harbor. The USS Austin is likewise deployed in the Gulf. The Sunburn missile, with its incredible speed and ability to avoid radar detection, would do terrible damage these ships if Iran chooses to retaliate in the Gulf after an American attack within its borders.

Beyond the naval threat is the possibility of Iran throwing its military muscle into the ongoing struggle in Iraq. Currently, the US is facing an asymmetrical attack from groups wielding small arms, shoulder-fired grenades and roadside bombs. The vaunted American military has suffered 2,210 deaths and tens of thousands of wounded from this form of warfare. The occupation of Iraq has become a guerrilla war, a siege that has lasted more than a thousand days. If Iran decides to throw any or all of its 23,000 armored fighting vehicles, along with any or all of its nearly million-strong army, into the Iraq fray, the situation in the Middle East could become unspeakably dire.

3. The Syrian Connection

In February of 2005, Iran and Syria agreed upon a mutual protection pact to combat "challenges and threats" in the region. This was a specific reaction to the American invasion of Iraq, and a reaction to America's condemnation of Syria after the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which was widely seen as an assassination ordered from Damascus. An attack on Iran would trigger this mutual defense pact, and could conceivably bring Syria into direct conflict with American forces.

Like Iran, Syria's military is nothing to scoff at. Virtually every credible analysis has Syria standing as the strongest military force in the Middle East after Israel. Damascus has been intent for years upon establishing significant military strength to serve as a counterweight to Israel's overwhelming capabilities. As of 2002, Syria had some 215,000 soldiers under arms, 4,700 tanks, and a massive artillery capability. The Syrian Air Force is comprised of ten to eleven fighter/attack squadrons and sixteen fighter squadrons, totaling somewhere near 650 aircraft.

Syria also possesses one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles in the region, comprised primarily of SCUD-derived systems. Iran, North Korea and China have been willing providers of state-of-the-art technologies. Compounding this is the well-based suspicion that Syria has perhaps the most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Persian Gulf.
www.truthout.org...

IRAN AND THE BOMB

This is an interesting article. It discusses the various estimates of
how long it will take for Iran to be able to build a nuclear bomb. It varies
from nation to nation. Interestingly, some US estimates think it will take 6
to 10 years.

Israel Wants West to Deal More Urgently With Iran
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: January 13, 2006

TEL AVIV, Jan. 12 - With Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map," Israeli officials have special reasons for concern now that Iran has defied the West and said it will resume enriching uranium.

The Israelis are engaged in a careful effort to press the United States and the Europeans to deal more urgently with Iran. Israel has no intention for now of trying to deal with Iran alone or through military means, officials say.
www.nytimes.com...

Straw Says U.K., U.S. Haven't Discussed Striking Iran (Update3)
Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. haven't discussed military action against Iran, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said after the Iranians resumed research into uranium enrichment.

``I've never had a single discussion with anyone in the U.S. administration about the possibility of military action,'' against Iran, Straw told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. Military action wouldn't be conceivable or appropriate, he said.
www.bloomberg.com...

War, Lies, and Videotape
They fabricated the case against Iraq –
now they're moving on Iran
by Justin Raimondo

As the U.S. gets ready to move on Iran, under the pretext of a gathering Iranian nuclear threat, the news that the War Party got creative when WMD were nowhere to be found in Iraq should give us pause.
www.antiwar.com...

Iran Threatens to End Nuclear Cooperation
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jan 13, 6:39 PM ET

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran threatened Friday to end surprise inspections and other cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program, and the president vowed his country won't be intimidated by sanctions.
news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Come on 27... if you recall, he "wanted" diplomacy to work with Iraq, as well. On these matters, Bush will say what his handlers tell him to say; and you can bet there's little truth in any of his public pronouncements. When it comes to those truly in charge of running the trains (Condi, Cheney, Rummy), those guys lie through teeth every time they're on camera. I thought the Clinton gang was bad. These folks make them look like college pranksters.

I know, but it takes two to tango. I guess all we can do is wait, watch, and hope Iran chills a bit.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Vagabond, you know me. You know I do not live under illusions

I do know you, and it wasn't said primarily for your benefit, but rather to add my perspective as a mildly qualified support of what you'd said.

Also, the Iranians probably understand this fully. Why else would they be shaking their collective fist at the west?

To be honest, I think there is a considerable cultural communications barrier between Middle East and the West. They tend to misunderstand us almost as much as we misunderstand them.
Certain C-students in our government who shall remain nameless seem to think that force is the only language they understand.
Certain non-students in their governments don't think that we understand any language at all, and that 90% of what we say is meaningless.

I could very easily be wrong, but I actually think the reason Iran is shaking their collective fist is because they think our hands are tied, not realizing that the misconceptions of our government may prevent us from realizing that our hands are tied, resulting in a war by miscalculation, unless cooler (and better functioning) heads find a way to prevail...

Which leads us to our next point

My hope is that rational heads in Washington prevail

I'm willing to bet that the most rational head in Washington DC is tending bar, so the only thing he can really do for the common good is make Bush and Kennedy surrender their car keys.

If rationality is going to find its way into US foreign policy under the current powers that be, I think it will have to be arranged by someone else (domestic or abroad) and handed to us on a silver platter, with a VERY compelling threat of what might happen if we don't accept it (hopefully on an electoral or diplomatic level- I'm not saying I'd like to see Bush trusted to do the right thing in the interest of protecting the lives of our troops against some threat)

Historians, among many other brilliant and experienced men and women are already calling the invasion of Iraq, the most horrific foreign policy mistake the United States has ever made.

I think that's a little bit of an overstatement to be honest. I'm only pointing it out to preempt a scuffle over that point really, but at this stage of the game there's a period bias to be considered. If I had to make nominations for the worst foreign policy mistake we've ever made, I'd nominate Vietnam, Agreeing to the terms at Versailles which lead the the Second World War, Agreeing not to fortify Guam in the runup to the war with Japan, and our handling of China before they entered the Korean War.

Iraq is by no means small potatoes, but I think it's important to reject partisan hyperbole, which, at least at this time (notwithstanding potential but as of yet unrealized effects of the war in Iraq), is exactly what the statements you've cited may prove to be.

Oh well, we're pretty close to on the same page, all the same.

I actually began to qualify that statement above re: our biggest foreign policy blunder. I try my best not to overstate things (a byproduct of working in the media). On this point, I do not know if it is the worst ever, I was just pointing out that noted scholars (etc) are now saying that on the record.

Thanks for your comments, V.

Here's an interesting, new take on the Iran situation.

Tehran has Washington by the cojones

Iran believes the U.S. and Britain are mired in Iraq and cannot spare the military muscle to pick a fight.

* * *
The Security Council cannot deal with Iran like Iraq, ruined by war and obliged to give UN inspectors unfettered access.

* * *
"As President George Bush might privately put it, Tehran has Washington by the cojones," wrote Oxford University professor Timothy Garton Ash.

Iran not only has a formidable military, but it has strong economic ties with Russia and China, both of whom wield vetoes on the Security Council.

The US and Britain bulldozed their way into Iraq, but how will they handle Iran?
On Monday, senior officials from Britain, the U.S., Russia and China will meet in London to try and agree on how to proceed.

* * *
[The] United States repeatedly has told Tehran that developing nuclear weapons capability is unacceptable.

* * *
[But,] experts [estimate] Iran is at least five years away from being able to produce a nuclear bomb.
Five years away. So what's the unstated urgency, could it be Iran's oil bourse that's slated to open in March?

[Jack Straw] insisted the dispute with Iran "can only be resolved by peaceful means."

* * *
[But,] US officials . . . won't rule out a unilateral military strike.

* * *
German deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler said imposing economic sanctions against Iran for its nuclear policy would be a "very dangerous path" and could "lead to an escalation that can get out of control."
Will cooler heads prevail? Your guess is as good as mine. But, don't hold your breath.
Hans Blix, who led the pre-war UN inspection team in Iraq, accuses Europe and the U.S. of not giving Iran enough economic and political incentives to make a deal.

At one point, Iran seemed ready to do so...

The deal tabled included allowing Iran to buy a light-water reactor and ending trade restrictions on spare parts, which helps explain the tendency of Iranian planes to fall out of the sky.

Iran then balked at an offer to have Russia supply enriched uranium, saying Moscow's recent gas dispute with Ukraine shows how easy it is for a supplier to turn off the tap.
He raises a very good point. We all know what happens when those who supply that which we need to survive decide to turn off the tap.
[W]hen credit is created out of "thin air" and returned on the maturity day to the bank this amounts to a withdrawal of money from the economy, i.e, [a] decline in the money stock . . . because there wasn't any original saver/lender, since this credit was created out of "thin air."

It follows then that the sole cause behind the wide swings in the stock of money [i.e., economic booms and depressions] is the existence of fractional reserve banking, which gives rise to unbacked-by-savings credit. (Mises thinks INTEREST is okay. Minor dispute. We know better.)
Ahmedinjad is no fool. MONEY and ENERGY make the world go 'round. What would you do for your people, if you were him?

When peak oil comes around, Iran will need an alternate source of energy. Who would you allow to control your country's destiny?
wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com...

Here's the latest. So I guess it boils down to whether or not you believe Iran's claim that they don't want nukes. They say they want nuclear energy. Why should Iran be believed?

Iran 'does not need nuclear arms'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that his country does not need a nuclear weapon.
At a news conference in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad said they were needed only by people who "want to solve everything through the use of force".

His comments come amid international condemnation of Tehran's move to restart its nuclear research.

Iran says it has a right to peaceful nuclear technology and denies claims it is covertly seeking to develop weapons.
news.bbc.co.uk...

A January 2, 2006 satellite image of the Natanz uranium enrichment complex in Iran was just released.

US releases satellite photo of Iran's N-site
By: WILLIAM C. MANN - Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A private Washington institution dedicated to lessening the global threat of nuclear weapons released a satellite photograph on Friday that it said shows extensive new construction at a newly restarted nuclear plant in Iran.

This can be compared to the February 2004 satellite photo



[edit on 1/15/06 by makeitso]