US will invade Iran in '06

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- No it's not just opinion.
It a recognition that all along as the Eu-3 have attempted to negotiate the US (and occasionally the Israelis) have issued comments and veiled threats and generally attempted to subvert the process.

What a huge load of garbage, rubbish if you will. Last night Bush was careful not to threaten or alienate the Iranian people in his speech. Let's check the latest on the situation....

Straw met with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki for more than an hour Wednesday. The pair also met Tuesday at a conference on Afghanistan in London.

"He (Mottaki) really needs to see this agreed position by the leaders of the international community, not as a threat but as an opportunity ... a final opportunity for Iran to put itself back on track," Straw told BBC radio.

"Mottaki was warned not to walk away from the IAEA additional protocol or to make threats," a British Foreign Office spokesman said, referring to demands by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. "This was not in Iran's interest."

Later, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that it was important to "send a signal of strength" to Iran.

www.cnn.com...

(emphasis mine)

What kind of strength was Blair referring to, hmm? A strongly worded letter of disapproval maybe?

Originally posted by 27jd
What a huge load of garbage, rubbish if you will. Last night Bush was careful not to threaten or alienate the Iranian people in his speech.

- Ah yes; the old 'it's not you it's your leadership' crock.
Tell that one to the Iraqis.

What kind of strength was Blair referring to, hmm? A strongly worded letter of disapproval maybe?

- The possibility of sanctions.

It's certainly not talk of a new ME war.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- The possibility of sanctions.

It's certainly not talk of a new ME war.

That's fine, stay in your self created, rosy little world of belief that everything is the fault of the U.S., and we are the ones who are constantly pushing war. Maybe in your dream world the Iranians, the EU-3, Russia, NK, and China will all unite against the U.S., and destroy us once and for all. Funny how you couldn't provide any examples when TJW asked you as far as us pushing war. All that has been said is all options should be kept on the table, the same thing was said about NK. But no war there.

Originally posted by 27jd
That's fine, stay in your self created, rosy little world of belief that everything is the fault of the U.S., and we are the ones who are constantly pushing war.

- There's nothing "self created" about recognising where the vast bulk of the pro-war talk is coming from.

Blair's comment today was about a formal referral to the UN SC and that is all about imposing some sort of sanctions regime; not British support for a new ME war (which does not exist and would never get through the necessary vote in our Parliament).

Maybe in your dream world the Iranians, the EU-3, Russia, NK, and China will all unite against the U.S., and destroy us once and for all.

- Now you are just being childishly silly.

Funny how you couldn't provide any examples when TJW asked you as far as us pushing war. All that has been said is all options should be kept on the table,

- If you are seriously trying to say there has not been hours of comment on US TV and miles of paper expended in your papers by the pro-war lobby then ok, you can say what you like.

I posted up McCain's recent comment, I refer to Bush's comments last night; there are many many others....all creating the climate and - just like you have done here - using code "keeping all options open" is hardly hard to decipher.

I am not getting into ridiculous games chasing around putting up links stating the obvious on this only for them to be ignored and the next complaint posted up.

the same thing was said about NK. But no war there.

- Yet.
The difference is that NK doesn't have major oil exports.
However they too defy the USA so I have no doubt they too will suffer from Bush's 2002 'axis of evil' threats.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- There's nothing "self created" about recognising where the vast bulk of the pro-war talk is coming from.

That's the type of crap that gets so annoying. I don't know anybody who is "pro-war"like it's a good time, it should never happen, unfortunately for that to be reality, everybody would have to give up their nationalistic/religious crap and realize we're all humans and whatever god is believed in by whomever doesn't need humans to do it's work for it.

Blair's comment today was about a formal referral to the UN SC and that is all about imposing some sort of sanctions regime; not British support for a new ME war (which does not exist and would never get through the necessary vote in our Parliament).

Wow, you were able to get quite alot out of "send a signal of strength", that's a pretty neat trick.

- Now you are just being childishly silly.

I'm serious. If you and your European collective think the U.S. is such a lying, warmongering threat to the world, and without us the world would be singing in the streets, cats and dogs would be holding hands, etc. then isn't it your duty to eliminate the U.S. menace for the sake of the world? Or is it just in your nature to deny, or just roll over and expose your belly in appeasement to every possible threat to your existence? If we're causing all the world's problems, shouldn't we be stopped? Why doesn't Europe support that cause?

- If you are seriously trying to say there has not been hours of comment on US TV and miles of paper expended in your papers by the pro-war lobby then ok, you can say what you like.

It's called sensationalism. Ever heard of it? They want people to be glued to the TV waiting for the other shoe to drop at any given time regarding terrorism, Iran, North Korea, SARS, bird flu, etc. Not so we will support another war, but instead so we can watch toothpaste commercials during the breaks.

I posted up McCain's recent comment, I refer to Bush's comments last night; there are many many others....all creating the climate and - just like you have done here - using code "keeping all options open" is hardly hard to decipher.

Any harder than "send a signal of strength"? I wonder what you would have deciphered if Bush said that, I'm pertty sure it wouldn't have been the same as your interpretation regarding Blair. I guess the code is just different between noble, peaceloving Brits, and bloodthirsty, baby eating Yanks, right?

I am not getting into ridiculous games chasing around putting up links stating the obvious on this only for them to be ignored and the next complaint posted up.

Of couse you're not, because those links don't exist and the U.S. is united with the rest of the world in finding a diplomatic solution if at all possible.

- Yet.
The difference is that NK doesn't have major oil exports.
However they too defy the USA so I have no doubt they too will suffer from Bush's 2002 'axis of evil' threats.

"Defy" the USA? Many countries "defy" the USA. There you go making us sound like the devil, and anybody who "defies" us will feel the wrath of fire. Again I ask, being on the side of good in a country that doesn't use oil, isn't it your country's job to destroy us before we consume the whole world in fire in our quest to control all the world's resources? Why is your country warning Iran at all? Why are they not joining forces against us?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- If you are seriously trying to say there has not been hours of comment on US TV and miles of paper expended in your papers by the pro-war lobby then ok, you can say what you like.

Well...yeah. Or again, maybe I'm just missing it. Since there's miles and miles of newspaper articles, and all article are also on the net, it shouldn't be hard to direct me to these articles right? I'm asking for your help here. You're saying it's everywhere here, but I'm not seeing more here than I do in the newspapers of the UK. So show me what I'm missing!

I mean, you're saying everyone here is pro war while everyone there is antiwar, yet you can't show me how you came to this conclusion. Tell me why I should believe you.

Here is question that I've been wondering about. I've heard Bush saying that he is for the idea of Russia enriching Iran's uranium. I know Russia is definately looking towards this as an option. Has Iran completely rejected this idea? Does Iran being referred to the security council mean that they won't accept Russia's offer? I can understand the fact that Iran would want to be self sufficient but to the greater extent I can only wonder what their motifs are if they aren't going to accept this seemingly great opportunity that would not cause any "fallout" from the west.

www.nytimes.com...

The president of Iran wants to be in full control of his own country's energy. He doesnt want a Russian baby-sitter. While I really dont want to see Iran develop a bomb, I cant really argue with the guys reasoning.

Originally posted by 27jd
I don't know anybody who is "pro-war"like it's a good time, it should never happen, unfortunately for that to be reality

- Well that is the usual tale told; so many ready to cry their eyes out out at the thought of going to war but nevertheless when it comes to it they just carry right on........

Wow, you were able to get quite alot out of "send a signal of strength", that's a pretty neat trick.

- No, the "trick" is in being able to see and interpret it in the context in which it was said and in the context of what has been said here to date.

Nothing too tricky or difficult about it.

If you and your European collective think the U.S. is such a lying, warmongering threat to the world, and without us the world would be singing in the streets, cats and dogs would be holding hands, etc. then isn't it your duty to eliminate the U.S. menace for the sake of the world?

- The thinking, so far, is that 'we' probably do more good trying to advise wise council from 'the inside'.

Just like 'we' did the whole world (including yourselves) an enormous favour at the time of the Korean war when 'we' managed to get your war-perv maniacs prevented from having their little nuclear war there.

Or is it just in your nature to deny, or just roll over and expose your belly in appeasement to every possible threat to your existence?

- Is that it?
A lame little dig (completely at odds with our history by the way) just cos you don't like a contrary argument? That's telling.

Anyhoo.
We prefer the facts.

Facts like Iran doesn't actually (by any informed assessment) have any nuclear weapons; things like the Iranian President you all seem so determined to use to be so scared about isn't in charge of the program anyway

"It would be a mistake to see the new president in charge of this. He's not," the European diplomat said. "The Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei) made it abundantly clear nuclear policy isn't up to (Ahmadinejad)."

www.wpherald.com...

If we're causing all the world's problems, shouldn't we be stopped? Why doesn't Europe support that cause?

- Because basically we haven't entirely given up on you lot, we're like that, haven't you noticed?
We know the whole of the US is not represented by the current version of the US administration.

It's called sensationalism. Ever heard of it? They want people to be glued to the TV waiting for the other shoe to drop at any given time regarding terrorism, Iran, North Korea, SARS, bird flu, etc. Not so we will support another war, but instead so we can watch toothpaste commercials during the breaks.

- Rationalise it all you like.
But there you go; you asked for me to point out where it was happening and yet you are obviously well aware of it yourself.
Why bother if you already know it is what is going on?

......and you can call it selling toothpaste all you like but I'll keep with the idea that it is so clearly an attempt at moulding opinion and making the idea of a war with Iran much more acceptable in US minds, thank you very much.

That's how you ended up with risible and idiotic ignorant nonsense like this -

A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

www.csmonitor.com...

....which was rather handy considering events just around the corner, right?
As Rove said 'creating our own reality'.

Any harder than "send a signal of strength"?

- In the context in which each was said, yes.

I wonder what you would have deciphered if Bush said that, I'm pertty sure it wouldn't have been the same as your interpretation regarding Blair.

- Of course not.
Bush is the one doing the 'axis of evil' threats; he is the one that saw the UN as a pointless diversion pre-Iraq war and Bush is the one who gives himself away with idiotic talk about 'crusades'.

I guess the code is just different between noble, peaceloving Brits, and bloodthirsty, baby eating Yanks, right?

- Are you intending to be so silly throughout this?

No matter how you cut it (and despite their laughably and grossly bloated opinion of themselves) the current US right wing are not all of America and therefore not representitive of all "yanks" or all American thinking.

Of couse you're not, because those links don't exist and the U.S. is united with the rest of the world in finding a diplomatic solution if at all possible.

- Sadly this is simply untrue.

There are stacks of links showing the US attitude and threats as the negotiation have gone on (and let's not forget 'context' hmmm?)-

I suggest you check out 'US Policy Option for Iran'
www.nci.org...

Not forgetting of course the 'The Project for the New American Century'
www.newamericancentury.org...

The White House warned Iran yesterday that it risked a "serious escalation" in its nuclear standoff with the UN and the west after Tehran broke the seals on equipment at its uranium enrichment facility.

www.guardian.co.uk...

The United States has demanded that the UN Security Council promptly confront Iran over its nuclear ambitions, while Russia and China have urged caution.

www.abc.net.au...

A top Air Force general today said the U.S. military routinely updates its war plans for Iran, but the general said there is no heightened state of alert at the moment.

Now, if the United States did attack Iranian nuclear sites, military experts say the Air Force and Navy would probably launch limited air and missile strikes.

Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reports.

transcripts.cnn.com...

WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Republican and Democratic senators said on Sunday the United States may ultimately have to undertake a military strike to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but that should be the last resort.

www.alertnet.org...

Jan 23: THE WAR WITH IRAN WILL have to be fought and we will, of course, defend Israel as best we can. But much bloodshed can be avoided, and Iran's nuclear objective put out of reach if we seize the advantage we gave up to Saddam in the UN. Surprise is a strategic advantage we must retain

www.spectator.org...

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

www.newyorker.com...

On Sunday, April 24, 2005, the Fox News Channel showed “Iran: The Nuclear Threat”. As the neoconservative (neo-Trotskyite) television news channel, this was an opportunity to count the number of intentional errors and omissions.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Over the past week the Bush Administration has issued more warnings to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear aspirations and end support for terrorism.

The United States Central Command says it is updating its war plan for Iran. According to the Washington Post, a senior U.S. officer called the planning part of the "normal process."
The news comes one week after President Bush's State of the Union address to Congress and the American people, in which he singled out the theocratic regime in Iran as a threat.

voanews.com/

"Defy" the USA? Many countries "defy" the USA.

- .....yep, and in time (if they have resources the US fears it will lose control of or they are strategically positioned) I have no doubt the devotees of 'Imperial America' - if still in power - will get around to them.

South America watch out in particular.

There you go making us sound like the devil, and anybody who "defies" us will feel the wrath of fire.

- No, not the devil, just observing the right-wing nutjobs in power in the US and their unhelpful nutter actions.

(.....and come on, you don't seriously believe in a devil.....oh Jayzuss wept.....maybe you do......

Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles, according to the latest FOX News poll. Though belief in God has remained at about the same level, belief in the devil has increased slightly over the last few years — from 63 percent in 1997 to 71 percent today.

www.foxnews.com...

- No fundamentalist problem in the USA today, no siree!)

Again I ask, being on the side of good in a country that doesn't use oil, isn't it your country's job to destroy us before we consume the whole world in fire in our quest to control all the world's resources?

- No; it's in all of our interests (as a species) to get you to realise for yourselves (if that is possible).

Despite any little unoriginal dreams of 'a thousand year administration' the present version of the US right-wing might have they are not going to last forever and they are not worth the ruin of our familial and cultural ties.

Why is your country warning Iran at all? Why are they not joining forces against us?

- Don't play the fool.
We want an equitable outcome all can live with, the current US belligerent approach is plainly selfish, unhelpful and counterproductive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Well...yeah. Or again, maybe I'm just missing it. Since there's miles and miles of newspaper articles, and all article are also on the net, it shouldn't be hard to direct me to these articles right? I'm asking for your help here. You're saying it's everywhere here, but I'm not seeing more here than I do in the newspapers of the UK. So show me what I'm missing!

- OK, there's at least half a dozen references linked to on this post, OK now?

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 3-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Well that is the usual tale told; so many ready to cry their eyes out out at the thought of going to war but nevertheless when it comes to it they just carry right on........

As opposed to what?

- No, the "trick" is in being able to see and interpret it in the context in which it was said and in the context of what has been said here to date.

Nothing too tricky or difficult about it.

I guess not if you're interpreting it as what you want to hear. You have a clear view of what you want Blair to have meant, and so in your mind that's what it meant.

- Is that it?
A lame little dig (completely at odds with our history by the way) just cos you don't like a contrary argument? That's telling.

Ah, so Britain has a history of violence and imperialism? I never knew that. The way you're after the U.S. for what you percieve as violence and imperialism you'd think your country either has never engaged in such actions, or just doesn't like competition, eh mate?

Anyhoo.
We prefer the facts.

I'm sure if they're ever made available you'll just say they're lies. What's the point?

Facts like Iran doesn't actually (by any informed assessment) have any nuclear weapons; things like the Iranian President you all seem so determined to use to be so scared about isn't in charge of the program anyway

The key is to make sure they don't get any, the fact that they don't have them yet is a good thing. It makes no difference what the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei) has said about the president's role in the nuclear program.

- Because basically we haven't entirely given up on you lot, we're like that, haven't you noticed?

Well thanks, dad.

We know the whole of the US is not represented by the current version of the US administration.

It doesn't represent me either, but that doesn't mean I support more nuclear weapons on earth just to spite them.

- Are you intending to be so silly throughout this?

No matter how you cut it (and despite their laughably and grossly bloated opinion of themselves) the current US right wing are not all of America and therefore not representitive of all "yanks" or all American thinking.

Yeah, I like being silly sometimes, it lightens the mood, usually. Unless your underwear are on too tight or you only find absurd, slapstick British humor amusing. And why do you quote yanks? Are you denying you call us that?

- Sadly this is simply untrue.

No, it isn't. In none of the links you provided can I find any direct threats of war. None. I see "serious escalation" which could just mean possible sanctions right? If Blair said that, that's what it would mean to you. In fact I see the Air Force saying it is not on any notice regarding Iran, and the U.S. believes military action should be the very last resort. Other than a couple opinion pieces I hardly see the beligerant threats you think you've proven.

(.....and come on, you don't seriously believe in a devil.....oh Jayzuss wept.....maybe you do......

Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles, according to the latest FOX News poll. Though belief in God has remained at about the same level, belief in the devil has increased slightly over the last few years — from 63 percent in 1997 to 71 percent today.

www.foxnews.com...

- No fundamentalist problem in the USA today, no siree!)

Yeah, that's it. I'm a regular old fundamentalist. I think I've made my position on religion abundantly clear, but maybe you're just being silly now. Touche. Anyways, you're the one who always says "Jayzuss wept", I guess as long as you tweak the spelling it's not really Jesus. I see.

- Don't play the fool.
We want an equitable outcome all can live with, the current US belligerent approach is plainly selfish, unhelpful and counterproductive.

Right, and Blair and his neo-libs aren't along for the ride.

TONY BLAIR gave warning last night that the West might have to take military action against Iran after worldwide condemnation of its President’s call for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.
www.timesonline.co.uk...

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
We know the whole of the US is not represented by the current version of the US administration.

When has the whole of the US ever really been represented by the Administration currently in power at the time. Never has man. Thats why its called elections, you have 2 or 3 different candidates and people vote for whom they believe represents their values and what they want best. You really think the entire of Iran is represented by the Revolutionary Council, or the entire of Britain is represented by Blair? No governement ever has 100% of the people behind it, no matter what government it is.

Thankyou lundaChris for responding to nationalism with reason.

To use an analogy,
I find, as in many countries administrations, the US administration acts collectively like a small child. They often have nieve notions on how other people (countries) should act. The only problem is, this is a very large and spoilt child, who doesnt take kindly to being told no.

Outside of the analogy,
I find the US administrations stance on terrorism rather humerous. They are combatting the ideology of hatred, with war. Since when has that ever suppressed anger?

Eventually, enough countries will collectively hate the US enough to send entire nations to war with the US. That may just be the US's undoing.

Humerous Aside:
The google ads above had a link to Iran News.
I clicked on that, and I got,
- Shipping to Iran
- Shipping by Canada?
- Travelling to Iran?
*Whistles, one of these things is not like the other.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by johnsky]

I think we've reached the stage of going round in circles so I'll leave this one at that.

If I may I will answer a couple of specific points tho....

Originally posted by 27jd
As opposed to what?

- Genuinely being opposed to war and sticking with that as opposed to sham displays of reluctance.

I guess not if you're interpreting it as what you want to hear. You have a clear view of what you want Blair to have meant, and so in your mind that's what it meant.

- Of course, that is how the whole idea of context works.

Ah, so Britain has a history of violence and imperialism? I never knew that. The way you're after the U.S. for what you percieve as violence and imperialism you'd think your country either has never engaged in such actions, or just doesn't like competition, eh mate?

- No matey, more like we have seen both sides of it and know it creates far more long-term problems than it is worth.

The key is to make sure they don't get any, the fact that they don't have them yet is a good thing.

- The one way to get them (and anyone else interested) to acquire them is to use threat and intimidation.

It makes no difference what the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei) has said about the president's role in the nuclear program.

- The comment wasn't about what the 'Supreme Leader' merely said but an expert IAEA insider observing the reality of what is happening.

Well thanks, dad.

- For so many Americans that is pretty close to the truth.

It doesn't represent me either, but that doesn't mean I support more nuclear weapons on earth just to spite them.

- It's not a matter of spite.

It's a matter of method and best possible outcomes.

I'd prefer those with nuclear weapons gave them up but that probably isn't going to happen.
But if were to take Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon to stabilise the region establish deterrence and end the threat of further ME wars then I don't see that as the worst possible outcome.
But then that is another issue entirely.

Yeah, I like being silly sometimes, it lightens the mood, usually.

If you want to kid on please add a smiley, it helps no end. 2D text on a screen isn't the greatest comedy medium, wouldn't you say?

Unless your underwear are on too tight or you only find absurd, slapstick British humor amusing.

- My preferred humour is pretty wide-ranging.
I love some of the American greats from the razor sharp acerbic genius of the much missed Bill Hicks to Frazier's insecure bombast to the British classics (including Python of course, I am a Brit after all) to Canada's excellent Trailer Park Boys.

And why do you quote yanks?

- Cos you used the term, not me.

Are you denying you call us that?

- Generally some here do but I think you'd find it a rare one from me.

No, it isn't. In none of the links you provided can I find any direct threats of war. None. I see "serious escalation" which could just mean possible sanctions right? If Blair said that, that's what it would mean to you. In fact I see the Air Force saying it is not on any notice regarding Iran, and the U.S. believes military action should be the very last resort. Other than a couple opinion pieces I hardly see the beligerant threats you think you've proven.

- OK, you are, of course, perfectly free to see it your way if you wish.
Dismiss Bush's explicit threats (in the context of the actual wars in the ME) all you like.

.....or the various 'refusing to rule out' (but you get the message *hint hint*) by Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld or Cheney

President Bush (search) refuses to rule out war with Iran

www.foxnews.com...

Yeah, that's it. I'm a regular old fundamentalist.

I think I've made my position on religion abundantly clear, but maybe you're just being silly now. Touche.

- OK so maybe here's a good example of one where you aren't the one suffering a humour bypass or too tight underwear and maybe it's me that should have used the smiley, hmmm?

Anyways, you're the one who always says "Jayzuss wept", I guess as long as you tweak the spelling it's not really Jesus. I see.

- It's just an Irish/British saying.

The spelling is just habit because the proper spelling is taken as offensive by some Christians.
Sorry for that.

Right, and Blair and his neo-libs aren't along for the ride.

- Frankly I really don't believe they are.
Blair understandably felt it right to 'stand by' America after 9/11 (just as most of the rest of the world - including Iran - offered sympathy and support to the USA). Unfortunately he went along with Iraq on the basis of the intel.

Blair did indeed make a comment about a possibility of war, in 2005, but even if he truly believes it he has no way of being able to carry that through the British Parliament.

But as I said earlier, thanks to Iraq, there will be no British involvement in any attack on Iran.
The procedures (the vote in Parliament) make this impossible given the present numbers.

I wonder what will happen if US gets control of our oil and they have fun with it for the next 90 years while China doesn't have it anymore and no more of major oil deals are at their demands. Let's face it there won't be an invasion, Iran is too big for you to handle and China+Russia won't allow it, do we need to go any further?.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Bozorgh]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Genuinely being opposed to war and sticking with that as opposed to sham displays of reluctance.

That's extremely unfair. How can you tell if somebody's opposition is genuine? I hate war. I'm the father of a young child, and it absolutely breaks my heart to think of children like him caught up in such a horrible thing.

- Of course, that is how the whole idea of context works.

Exactly, and only the person who said it truly knows what they meant. Others will make assumptions based on their own perceptions.

- The one way to get them (and anyone else interested) to acquire them is to use threat and intimidation.

They have been interested long before any intimidation or threats...

Iran's nuclear program began under the Shah in 1974, but was abruptly suspended following the Islamic revolution in 1978-79. The Shah also conducted research in the production of fissile material, but these efforts were suspended during the revolution and the Iran-Iraq war. It was not until 1984 that Ayatollah Khomeini revived Iran's nuclear weapons program. There are some indications that he did so reluctantly, viewing these weapons as amoral. In 1987 and 1988, the reactor sites at Bushehr I and II were damaged by Iraqi air strikes, and progress was again arrested.

www.cdi.org...

- For so many Americans that is pretty close to the truth.

Maybe if you took us to more football (soccer to normal people) games when we were little, we wouldn't have turned out this way.

Originally posted by 27jd
How can you tell if somebody's opposition is genuine?

- By their actions is the usual standard I suppose.

I hate war. I'm the father of a young child, and it absolutely breaks my heart to think of children like him caught up in such a horrible thing.

- It wasn't a comment aimed at you personally 27jd.

Exactly, and only the person who said it truly knows what they meant. Others will make assumptions based on their own perceptions.

- ......and what has been said and done beforehand, no?

They have been interested long before any intimidation or threats.

- I wouldn't say those facts were too helpful.
Firstly you show the US persuaded the Iranians of their interests in pursuing nuclear energy and secondly you show how Iran in a war against US-backed Iraq took an interest in nuclear weapons.

Maybe if you took us to more football (soccer to normal people) games when we were little, we wouldn't have turned out this way.

As you may have heard by now, Iran has been reported to the security counsel by the IAEA...
Supporters include Russia, China, India
The sponsers of the resolution were Britain, France, and Germany

I don't get it...
ECK and sminkey are telling me only the U.S. is supporting doing something with Iran. And it's the NeoCons who are pushing this. What gives?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
ECK and sminkey are telling me only the U.S. is supporting doing something with Iran. And it's the NeoCons who are pushing this. What gives?

- ECK can and I'm sure will answer for himself.

My view is that Europe has genuine concerns that this does not escalate to a new ME war (and we do indeed see that as a real possibility; this nonsensical idea some hold of air strikes being the end of it - even if they could 'get' everything - is wishful thinking in the extreme).

'We' are trying to engage Iran through the various mechanisms of the various treaties concerned and were more than happy that Iran was prepared to - and did - go beyond treaty obligations.
'Others' sadly were not, so, none of that did anything to stop the increasing tensions, rancour, criticism, veiled threats and hence the on-going 'crisis'.
It is that that Europe has reacted to IMO, but their intent is to give Iran space to diffuse the issue not to crank up the war machine.

Iran on the other hand feels it has met its' requirements and is simply the target of illegal (not to mention hypocritical) US pressure (and probably soon actual aggression and attack whether by the US directly or her regional proxy Israel).
I don't think it's too hard to see where they get that idea from.

Nor how unhelpful it is in trying to resolve this issue.

Right on cue, helpful as ever, Bush and co. are at it again today -

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US hoped Iran would heed the "clear message" from the IAEA.

"The world will not stand by if Iran continues on the path to a nuclear weapons capability," Ms Rice said in a statement.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Of course this is all about enriching for power (we already know about the centrifuge numbers.....and that the supposedly very scary heavy water plant is not in fact a breach of any IAEA rules).
In short no evidence of any actual nuclear weapons capability as usual but plenty of the usual going on and on about them and implied threats.

Europe is not reporting Iran because of ideas about any actual weapons existing (or about to exist) but because we want a firmer inspection regime (which involves going beyond the treaties signed to date - they call them new 'protocols' - but I doubt there'll be too much talk about how they were meeting their previous obligations).
But a new inspection regime is hardly in the same ball-park as the wild evidence-free claims and innuendo about a weapons program, that is not quite the same thing, clearly.

But as for this so-called referral (or reporting) you might also note that nothing is going to happen until march to give some time for further negotiations.

It might also help some of the more pro-war types around here to note that this referral is not a 'UN sanctioned green light' to a new ME war.

It might eventually mean some sort of sanctions get discussed but even that is far from conclusive and their implementation is far from certain either-

it puts off any action until a report is delivered by agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei at the next IAEA meeting on 6 March.

Russia and China agreed to support the resolution on condition it did not contain any immediate threat of sanctions against Iran.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Interesting.
March is when Iran gets out of $US and into Euros.
This is, IMO, not unconnected at all.

BTW I don't recall ever saying either Britain or Europe or anybody would not refer the matter on to the UN SC, did I?

[edit on 4-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by 27jd


What a huge load of garbage, rubbish if you will. Last night Bush was careful not to threaten or alienate the Iranian people in his speech.

He was careful because his options stink. The administration's normally bellicose language towards Iran is not supported by reality.

Hey Sminkeypinkey, thanks for providing that list of links. Awesome.

I hope those who are reading this thread will take the time to read them.

You have voted sminkeypinkey for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.