Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Algol · 2004-09-19 04:25:59

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3670018.stm]Iran has reacted defiantly to calls from the UN nuclear watchdog to suspend all enrichment activities and said it would not agree to halt them.

Its good thing we invaded Iraq because it definately cowed Iran. They'll definately behave now and theres no way our overly aggressive moves played into the hands of the hardline conservatives such that supporting increased democracy is tantamount to supporting America. And since we invaded Iraq theyll definately not produce nuclear weapons - its not as if we've done anything to make them think they might need them or anything <cough> North Korea <cough>

BTW i think Iran is our best hope for democracy in the middle east - a significant proportion of their population are familiar with the idea <cough> unlike Iraq <cough> and more importatly want it. You'd have though if we were really interested in democracy in the middle east we'd have done something to help them, not hinder them.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-19 07:12:41

Thanks for bringing this up, Algol. (I can't remember where your politics lie, exactly, but I assume your post was tending somewhat toward sarcasm. )

The Iranian government is a totalitarian fundamentalist Islamic regime, which has been strongly linked to terrorism for many years now. Their aim is to run Iran as a theocracy, with Muslim clerics in charge, and the rules derived directly from a narrow interpretation of the Koran. They form one part of a loose amalgamation of Arab Islamic states, including Syria, one of the primary aims of which is the total destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish people.

Iran has proven reserves of crude oil amounting to some 130 billion barrels, roughly 10% of total world reserves, together with proven natural gas reserves of 940 trillion cubic feet, the world's second largest reserve! Due, no doubt, to this energy shortage(! ), Iran's leadership has decided it needs to create its own nuclear industry ... purely for peaceful energy production purposes, of course
In addition to a few small nuclear research reactors already in existence, Iran is in the process of completing a large-scale nuclear power plant in a town called Bushehr in the south of the country. The plant has a long history, having been started in 1974 with help from West Germany but delayed by the war with Iraq, during which it was severely damaged by bombing on several occasions. Since the mid-nineties, Russia has been providing all the assistance Iran needs to facilitate completion of the reactor. (Remember Russia? They supported the French in opposing the liberation of Iraq. Remember the French? They were the ones who constructed a nuclear reactor for Saddam Hussein near Baghdad.)

...... [Hmmm. (West) Germany, Russia, and France. All involved in providing nuclear facilities to Middle Eastern countries and all involved, coincidentally, in undermining U.N. determination to make an example of Iraq. Isn't it funny how things work out? You could almost imagine some kind of connection.
Still, at least the U.N. is moving swiftly and decisively to put an end to the genocidal ethnic cleansing, being perpetrated by Islamic terrorists in Sudan, ... isn't it? :hm:
Ah well. Enough idle musing for now.] ......

In addition to its almost completed nuclear plant, Iran has a very advanced uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which involves hundreds of gas centrifuges. The facility was described by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors as "impressive". You need to enrich uranium if you want to create bomb-grade nuclear material, by the way.

Just to complete the picture, Iran last month successfully tested the latest version of its Shahab-3 medium range ballistic missile. With a range of 1300 km, the projectile can reach anywhere in Israel and/or U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf.

As I've said elsewhere at New Mars, unless somebody does something about it, this time next year Iran could well have an atomic bomb and a missile on which to launch it.
Does this matter? After all, the Soviet Union and America aimed nuclear missiles at each other for 40 years but neither side dared to push the button, right? Right, they were constrained by fear; fear of something called "MAD" - Mutual Assured Destruction. But does this apply to Iran?
We have to remember here that we're dealing with a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. The theocratic fascist leaders of this state espouse the spreading of their religion by whatever means available to them, including death and destruction even of their own people! These so-called clerics surreptitiously support the suicide-bombing murders of innocent people in Israel and are content to kill people of their own religion in Iraq, by the same means, to undermine the emergence of democracy there. They are understood to fund and support terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, and are believed to spend $millions aiding murderers in Iraq.
The Iranian leaders seek to propagate a religion which embraces death, glorifying suicide-bombers who, in the act of slaughtering the innocent, are promised "70 black-eyed virgins" to tend to their every whim in paradise. These people have turned savage and cruel butchery into religious martyrdom and promised the perpetrators heaven in return for mayhem.
Do you trust these people to shy away from a nuclear attack on American bases, or on Israel, for fear of a massive loss of life on both sides?
Hmmm. You might .. but I don't!

There's no doubt in my mind that if America or the U.N. don't do something about Iran soon, Israel certainly will. Already vilified by much of the world's media, experiencing the gradual emergence of a new wave of anti-semitism, surrounded by implacable enemies, and mindful of a time when meek acceptance of world events led 6 million of them to the SS ovens, it's hard to see what alternative the Israelis would have.

Stay tuned to Iran for more exciting news in the weeks and months ahead!

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-09-19 07:34:39

posted a poll on the middle East

you might want to check it out

yes it is true Saddam is a bad man, he is a criminal and was a horrible dictator, but who is the bigger threat to peace in the Middle East
.
With the current war on terror, disinformation from Rummy and the neo-con influence in the media.
There are reports Israel that they were bulldozing the family homes of "suspected agitators", displacing dozens of people at a time. So Israel has been doing this for decades, but not a peep of it ever reached western press. And somehow, the fact that the Palestinian grazing lands, fields and orchards were destroyed, the fact that farmers are now separated from their remaining fields, that it takes literally hours to travel just a few miles- to work, to school, to hospital- just never really makes it into the news
now with elections and the war in Iraq it is hard to not see topics and posts poppin up
So who is and was the biggest danger to security
and which guy is the bigger terrorist
The fact is the actions of the current governemnt in Isreal has caused the growth of much hatred and anti-Americanism. Sharon was found to have acted in a terrible manner and was held directly responsible for the terrorist atrocity where maybe up to 3,000 innocent people were massacred in Sabra. We know how himself and his crew refered to them as 'two-legged animals'. The Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, is one of the world's most bloodstained terrorists like the evil Binladen. He is responsible for the cold-blooded slaughter of at least 1,500 men, women and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Chatila. Even a formal Israeli commission found Sharon personally responsible for the Lebanese massacres
Ariel Sharon is sought for trial by the Hague Tribunal, the same body that succeeded in extraditing former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for charges of crimes against humanity in Kosovo. Sharon will not travel to Belgium for fear of arrest by the International Court for the massacre.
After the Israeli military devastation and occupation, Sharon forcibly removed Palestinian resistance fighters from Lebanon. Many Palestinian women, children and old people were left behind in refugee camps near Beirut. The United States publicly guaranteed their safety and promised that they would quickly be reunited with their loved ones. When Sharon plotted their murder, he not only planned a bloody act of terrorism against the refugees; he knew it was an act of treachery against the United States that would raise intense hatred against America.
Wasn't Sharon, after all, the one that said that Isreal controlled the U.S. ?
What do you make of these posts, is Sharon another Saddam ?

ISRAEL'S TOURISM MINISTER Rehavam Zeevi's speaking of Palestinians who were living illegally in Israel: “We should get rid of the ones who are not Israeli citizens the same way you get rid of lice. We have to stop this cancer from spreading within us.”
Washington Post

So when the US supplied weapons and advisors to Bin Laden to aid in his efforts to overthrow the Soviets...
As for the Israelis, how much of a difference is there really in attacking and killing a civilian outright or repeatedly killing civilians in accidental crossfire or collateral damage? At what point does it stop being accidental and simply becomes an uncaring attitude? Neither side of the Israel/Palestine conflict is guiltless. They both seem equally stupid and stubborn. The Palestinian terrorists might be blowing themselves up to kill civilians... but the Israelis respond back by levelling a block of Palestinian houses or conducting a rocket attack from helicopter gunships into a crowded street.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-19 08:36:29

All very interesting YLR and some of it is probably quite true. I've been advocating a compromise between Israel and the Palestinians for many years, by the way, and would love to see a Palestinian state existing peacefully next to Israel.
But so what? It isn't going to happen because the Palestinians have vowed not to rest until there is no Israel any more. All the surrounding Arab states feel the same way about it. There's no apparent solution to it and, when it's all over, there'll only be one side left standing. It's a fight to the death.

In the meantime, what do you think the U.N. will do about Iran? From past experience of their fumbling ineptitude in every world arena, mainly because half their members are despots who can't even spell 'human rights', and their current paralysis while thousands are slaughtered by Muslims in Sudan, I suggest they'll do nothing ... as usual.
What do you think America or Israel will do, now they're faced with the imminent prospect of an Islamofascist state armed with nuclear missiles? Do you think they'll stand by, with their thumb up their ... (ahem! ), and quietly let it be?

This is serious business and something's gotta give. You might be sympathetic to the Islamofascist cause, I don't know. But that has no bearing on the main thrust of my post.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-19 09:18:41

It strikes me that Bush will put a bullet in Iran's head. I think the Russians are cynical enough to realize that - they don't need a nuclear armed Islamic fundamentalist state any more than we do (cough BRESLAN cough cough) but probably figure we'll blow up Iran's reactor before anything interesting happens. Having smashed Iraq with only suspicion of WMD possession, invading Iran when they're screaming "WE'RE BUILDING NUUUUUUUUUKES!" at the top of their lungs seems logical and consistent, not that presidents have ever been constrained by such quaint principles.

Besides, we're withdrawing a bunch of troops from Germany and South Korea.... now where could they be headed? It's not like we've got boots in the countries right next to Iran, right? Oh wait...

Euler · 2004-09-19 14:46:06

Can we invade Iran? We seem to be straining our manpower just occupying Iraq, but Iran has 3 times more people and 4 times more area. It is also rugged, mountainous terrain, and the Iranian army is much stronger than Iraq's army was. I don't think that we can successfully control Iran, or at least not unless we implement the draft to increase our manpower.

Dook · 2004-09-19 15:10:48

I think Iran poses a serious threat to Israel and to the world but I don't believe there is anything that we can really do about it at this time. Maybe if WMD were really found in Iraq, then we could also go into Iran but since they were not we must stay out and let things be. Many people believe that the US wants to rule the arab world. Typically these people hate and distrust the US no matter what but our friends are even looking at us with distrust.

I do not believe we should attack their reactor. Israel has nukes and they can defend themselves and we can certainly defend ourselves. Only if Iran was found to be giving away nuclear devices, equipment, or nuclear information to terrorists would I support military action.

I supported removing Saddam and I still believe it was the right thing but we need to repair our image now. There is no way we can move against Iran.

Hopefully the people of Iran will tire of having a relatively few religious hardliners force their beliefs upon the masses. The people will likely vote out the hardliners but the rulers will not allow the modern candidates to get their names on the voting ballots. Maybe there will be a new Iranian revolution?

Trebuchet · 2004-09-19 15:34:45

We can beat the crap out of Iran, definitely, shatter their armies, sure. I'm not really sure about putting the pieces back together, though it would be easier than you think (because Iran wouldn't have, well, Iran and Syria running guns and causing trouble, and also because it's more culturally homogenous). Given that Bush is moving troops from South Korea and Germany... we can probably do it.

If I were Bush, though, I'd whack their reactor and enrichment facilites on November 3rd or 4th. Either you've won or you've lost in the election, you're not running for anything again, and the world will find something else to bitch about in a month or so. In the meantime you've wiped out one of the real threats (nukes in Iran's hot hands) in the war on terror.

You smash Iran's reactor, what are they going to do?

A) Run guns into Iraq and generally support terrorism? They're already doing that.
B) Run over the border with their normal troops? ::cue laugh track:: That's just suicide.
C) Sit tight and whine

I'm guessing C, while shouting to the world that they're doing A because of the evil, evil Americans.

Euler · 2004-09-19 16:47:10

You smash Iran's reactor, what are they going to do?
A) Run guns into Iraq and generally support terrorism? They're already doing that.
B) Run over the border with their normal troops? ::cue laugh track:: That's just suicide.
C) Sit tight and whine
I'm guessing C, while shouting to the world that they're doing A because of the evil, evil Americans.

That is what they did last time, when Isreal blew up thier previous reactor (yes, this has all happened before).

Martian Republic · 2004-09-19 18:38:43

We can beat the crap out of Iran, definitely, shatter their armies, sure. I'm not really sure about putting the pieces back together, though it would be easier than you think (because Iran wouldn't have, well, Iran and Syria running guns and causing trouble, and also because it's more culturally homogenous). Given that Bush is moving troops from South Korea and Germany... we can probably do it.
If I were Bush, though, I'd whack their reactor and enrichment facilites on November 3rd or 4th. Either you've won or you've lost in the election, you're not running for anything again, and the world will find something else to bitch about in a month or so. In the meantime you've wiped out one of the real threats (nukes in Iran's hot hands) in the war on terror.
You smash Iran's reactor, what are they going to do?
A) Run guns into Iraq and generally support terrorism? They're already doing that.
B) Run over the border with their normal troops? ::cue laugh track:: That's just suicide.
C) Sit tight and whine
I'm guessing C, while shouting to the world that they're doing A because of the evil, evil Americans.

I suppose you could do that, but that would be a good way to start World War III. Because the rest of the world will be forces to band together against the United States to defend themselves from American aggression. I hate war and war is not a good way to settle a conflict. Especially when we Americans are ones in the wrong while engaging in the acts of starting wars across the entire planet. I would have a different opinion if some other country was going around bombing and attacking other country's the way we been doing for the passed three or four years now, then I in intervene to stop that aggressor, but we are the aggressor nation and we are the tyrant nation. We are the mass murderers, we are the one going into other country without a just cause and attacking other nation. For the same reason that people in Nazi Germany high command were tried as war criminals for starting illegal wars of which 7 out of ten were executed that were found guilty of that crime. I support impeaching George Bush and his entire cabinet and trying them as war criminals by the same rule that those Nazi war criminals were tried for war crimes. By the way, George and his whole crew would be found guilty and many of them might even whined up being executed for there crimes against humanity too, but all of them would be found guilt and probably serve a life sentence for the crime.

Larry,

Trebuchet · 2004-09-19 18:56:01

LAROUCHE! Whoooo! :laugh:

C'mon, I disagree with Ecraz L'Infame (I've probably just murdered your name, but we know who I'm talking about) more or less completely, but buddy, you're *completely* loco.

No one (important) cares about tincan dictators. Nobody. It's a convenient stick to smack America with diplomatically, but trust me, assuming no third parties end up dying (meaning other countries) you could burn whole countries to the ground, and the most that would happen is maybe a crossly worded letter from the UN. Bush and his associates in the White House have made every reasonable effort (and some unreasonable ones) to avoid civilian casualties, which is costing US casualties in the process.

Arguing that World War III is going to happen because we kick a few dictators in the head is insane. You have to ask yourself: is China/India/Russia really going to feel threatened - threatened enough to risk a major, possibly nuclear conflict - over some suicidal maniacs in the Middle East?

Any sane person is going to say "No."

Mad Grad Student · 2004-09-19 19:02:25

This doesn't deal with Iran, but it does with nuclear proliferation in the "Axis of Evil" (speaking of which, when are we invading Evil Kinevel :;): ), so I suppose it's applicable here. It appears that the Bush adminsitration has reached an impasse of sorts with North Korea. NoKo has said that they wouldn't hesitate to nuke us if we invade, Bush has said that we wouldn't hesitate to invade if they have nukes, and at the same time we detect a two-mile diameter mushroom cloud billowing up from Northern North Korea. Do they have nukes? Are they serious about using nukes? Is Bush dumb enough to invade even if they are serious? With all these questions it would be good to get some intelligence on the issue, as long as it's real intelligence and not the play, fake intelligence Bush used to drag us into Iraq.

I'm confident that no first world country is dumb enough to use nukes first, but North Korea, who knows? They've had data on nuclear weapons fed to them by Pakistan, but is it enough to create their own weapons? Even if they could, it's important to know if they have a delievery system to send them the 5,500 miles across the Arctic to the US. There are obviously a lot of unknowns, and I know that it's ridiculously unlikely that any sort of nuclear conflict could break out, but the idea of having a trigger-happy dimwit like Bush in the White House for four more years really worries me. John Kerry might not have a proven foreign policy record, but I'm confident that he'd be more likely to err on the side of caution and not invade than rush in to disarm them, only to have the situation blow up in his face like Iraq did to Bush. Kerry seems to have learned Bush's lesson, has Bush learned it yet? ???

Martian Republic · 2004-09-19 22:04:47

LAROUCHE! Whoooo! :laugh:
C'mon, I disagree with Ecraz L'Infame (I've probably just murdered your name, but we know who I'm talking about) more or less completely, but buddy, you're *completely* loco.
No one (important) cares about tincan dictators. Nobody. It's a convenient stick to smack America with diplomatically, but trust me, assuming no third parties end up dying (meaning other countries) you could burn whole countries to the ground, and the most that would happen is maybe a crossly worded letter from the UN. Bush and his associates in the White House have made every reasonable effort (and some unreasonable ones) to avoid civilian casualties, which is costing US casualties in the process.
Arguing that World War III is going to happen because we kick a few dictators in the head is insane. You have to ask yourself: is China/India/Russia really going to feel threatened - threatened enough to risk a major, possibly nuclear conflict - over some suicidal maniacs in the Middle East?
Any sane person is going to say "No."

Are you really so naïve to think this war is just against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba?

Do you really defend George Bush and think that he has a right to commit genocide against other nation?

Russia believe that the United States and Great Britain are behind Chechen’s rebel attack. I believe that too and it called irregular warfare. You create a gorilla war with marginally Chechen or with questionable loyalty, but there by a foreign power trying to destroy another foreign power, but there working behind the scenes to accomplish that deed.

Oh, just for the sake of the argument, non of this information came from a Larouche web site.

http://www.canada.com/national/national … ...884f499

http://www.rense.com/general57/checg.ht … /checg.htm

This is the economic side of that war against Russia and to dismember it from within.

http://www.russianlondon.com/uknews/bus … ess/22176/

The Bush Administration are going to mess with China too. This is part of the air war against China. China also understands that an attack against North Korea will in essence be an attack against them and to bring American forces up along China border for an old style kind of British encirclement of other country’s. This is not the best news link to show what going on, but it show an on going process by the Bush Administration to start trouble in China too. The Bush Administration is also messing with India too and Pakistan. Etc.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article … 2755.shtml

Here is there stated purposes in there own words what they intend to do to the rest of the world. They intend to dismember all other country without exception and even eventually the United States will get dismembered too. These guys are equal opportunity murderers, they will kill anybody and everybody they choose to kill.

http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/mi … clash.html

http://www.newamericancentury.org/]http … ntury.org/

Now the Russian, the Chinese, Indian and just about every other nation understand that the United States want to take down every country without exception, but we want to take them down one at a time. This information that I have shared with you is only part of the information that they have on the United State and what our intention are under Dick Cheney. Are they afraid of what we are doing in the middle east? Absolutly, they are afraid of the United States and what we are doing. I promise you there not going to wait to be taken down one nation at a time, but will band together and destroy America and will utterly lay waist our nation. If we continue doing what we are doing, I don’t blame them either and they are perfectly within there right to destroy our nation out of self-defense.

I come to the conclusion that murdering other people in other countries does not bother. Apparently starting a World War doesn’t bother you either even if the United State whined up destroyed as a result of that war. Obviously even Enron, Halliburton, Duke, El Paso Gas, Reliant ripping off the American people doesn’t bother you either. California got ripped off to the tune of twenty to thirty billion by George Bushes Friends and the U.S. Government got Dick Cheney old company by over half a billion dollar. That don’t bother you either.

It takes a lot to rattle you, doesn’t it?

OK, I one for you!

How about an American President that kill three thousand American!

Would that or does that rattle you?

Take a look at the two links below and if that does not move you from your immoral position, then I give up on you, because you’re a lost cause. Because, we have a President that reserve the right to murder any one he want to and any where he chooses to do it and under condition and call it any thing want to and you have no problem with that.

This a report on George Bush authorizing the 9/11 attack on the world trade center in New York.

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm … 7/aale.htm

This a web broad cast of Alex Jones of former Republican Senator Bob Doyle lawyer Stanley Hilton and his report on his lawsuit against George Bush on behave of the 400 that were victims of the 9/11 attack and George Bush authorizing that attack. The lawsuit is a seven billion dollars lawsuit too. He is also pushing charges of racketeering, murder of 3,000 Americans during the 9/11 attack, treason, etc. with a few other such charges thrown in.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091204 … hilton.htm

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-09-19 23:01:53

This doesn't deal with Iran, but it does with nuclear proliferation in the "Axis of Evil" (speaking of which, when are we invading Evil Kinevel :;): ), so I suppose it's applicable here. It appears that the Bush adminsitration has reached an impasse of sorts with North Korea. NoKo has said that they wouldn't hesitate to nuke us if we invade, Bush has said that we wouldn't hesitate to invade if they have nukes, and at the same time we detect a two-mile diameter mushroom cloud billowing up from Northern North Korea. Do they have nukes? Are they serious about using nukes? Is Bush dumb enough to invade even if they are serious? With all these questions it would be good to get some intelligence on the issue, as long as it's real intelligence and not the play, fake intelligence Bush used to drag us into Iraq.
I'm confident that no first world country is dumb enough to use nukes first, but North Korea, who knows? They've had data on nuclear weapons fed to them by Pakistan, but is it enough to create their own weapons? Even if they could, it's important to know if they have a delievery system to send them the 5,500 miles across the Arctic to the US. There are obviously a lot of unknowns, and I know that it's ridiculously unlikely that any sort of nuclear conflict could break out, but the idea of having a trigger-happy dimwit like Bush in the White House for four more years really worries me. John Kerry might not have a proven foreign policy record, but I'm confident that he'd be more likely to err on the side of caution and not invade than rush in to disarm them, only to have the situation blow up in his face like Iraq did to Bush. Kerry seems to have learned Bush's lesson, has Bush learned it yet? ???

>>Do they have nukes?<<

There almost certain to have nuclear weapon. But, they won't have more that say ten or so. Because there stock of fissionable material that is weapon grade is very limited, but they do have some nuclear material that could be used in a bomb.

>>Are they serious about using nukes? <<

If you force North Korea into a corner and refuse to let them up or give them an honorable escape plan, all bets are off. Also there going to look at what we did to Iraq and say what the hell, launch everything we got at the Americans if push come to shove with America in a confrontation with North Korea. Also North Korea may also have a few rockets that may be able to make the trip across the Pacific too. But, again it would only be a few rocket that will make the trip, because that all they had. They will fire everything they have and do as much damage as they can to either South Korea and/or Japan or anything else they can hit that belongs to the United States before we retaliate against North Korea. If we get into a conflict with North Korea and you hear we lost LA in a nuclear blast. You will know what happened. We might possibly lose two or three cities.

>> Is Bush dumb enough to invade even if they are serious?<<

Yes, he is or maybe evil enough to invade North Korea. The 9/11 attack was by George Bush orders and they may choose to loose two or three American City and then George Bush could declare Marshall law and do away with the U.S. Constitution. I would not put such a deed like this past these people, because these people don't care about the American people at all.

>>I'm confident that no first world country is dumb enough to use nukes first, but North Korea, who knows? <<

Any country will use what ever weapon they have at there disposal if you push them far enough, even first world country. That why they have those weapons, it to hold off the potential adversary and to convince him to leave you alone.

>>They've had data on nuclear weapons fed to them by Pakistan, but is it enough to create their own weapons?<<

With a mad dog like George Bush in power, it may not make any difference in that he may choose to eat two or three nuclear missile.

>> Kerry seems to have learned Bush's lesson, has Bush learned it yet?<<

Yes, I agree with you on this one. Besides, John Kerry is not a bully like George Bush is.

Larry,

Euler · 2004-09-19 23:24:27

NoKo has said that they wouldn't hesitate to nuke us if we invade, Bush has said that we wouldn't hesitate to invade if they have nukes, and at the same time we detect a two-mile diameter mushroom cloud billowing up from Northern North Korea. Do they have nukes?

We think that they currently have nukes, but not very many (single digits). They would also most likely be very primitive devices, like the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The NK government says that the mushroom cloud was not a mushroom cloud (IIRC it was a large amount of conventional explosives being used to demolish an old hydroelectric project). The US and SK governments seem confident that the NK government is telling the truth, so they probably are.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-20 05:31:29

Wow, Martian Republic!
You might be on to something. You know, I bet the Bush family were behind the destruction of the Challenger and Columbia space shuttles as well, so as to convince more taxpayers to divert money away from space and into making war on everybody.
Yes, I'm quite sure George W. Bush or his family were responsible for blowing up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, incinerating all those Australians in the Bali bombings, slaughtering all those children in Beslan, and attempting to destroy the Australian embassy in Jakarta last week.
Heeeey! ... Are we entirely sure they got the right man for that Roger Rabbit murder? Seems to me it's got the Bush family name written all over it ??? :laugh:

[Sheesh .. give us a break! ]

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-09-20 05:52:51

Time for another Irangate and iraq-gate to bring back to profit to the ranch, even if it means the cost of more American lives ?
I hear they are bringing back the draft anyway

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 06:04:02

Most everyone in here really needs to pay closer attention to the points Shaun mentioned. Work it in between the Bush-bashing and the conspiracy rants.

If nothing else it might make the inane ramblings more coherent. At least come up with an evil-Bush plot that makes sense.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-20 09:31:16

Martian Republic said:

Russia believe that the United States and Great Britain are behind Chechen’s rebel attack. I believe that too

You must be - without a doubt - the most utterly Fruit Loops insane person I've ever heard open their mouth and utterly ignore rational thought. Congratulations.

Anyways, to turn to more sane people and topics, such as Euler and nuclear weapons:

North Korea probably has assembled a handful of nukes. Whether they will work or not is anybody's guess without testing, though the designs are probably reliable enough and no one wants to find out by experiment. Nobody - not even the Chinese - likes, trusts, or particularly wants North Korea the way it is. The whole situation resembles a bunch of adults attempting to disarm an insane child with a gun: delicate, delicate work, and requiring great patience to get them to put the damn gun down. China is concerned with the US and South Korea on its doorstep, but nobody would mind much if the Chinese set up a stable, reasonably sane puppet government of its choosing there (well, South Korea might mind some, due to reunificationist dreams, but they'd agree that it beats the possibility of nuclear suntan). The only problem is that North Korea is *completely* nuts, and might fire off nukes at literally anybody for no discernable reason at all if the hornet's nest is forcefully poked.

So everybody seems to have decided on the 'dinosaur defense' with North Korea (do nothing) since their state is so dysfunctional and nutty that at some point it will collapse without any outside intervention, and while normally disintegrating states act unpredictable and anything can happen - with North Korea, that's already true, so what's the real downside?

Now, with Iran, nukes are even more threatening, in a way, because they're much more predictably bad. If they get them, they WILL use them, period, presumably against Israel first, the US second, and Russia third. The fact that their nation will glow in the dark for a few thousand years afterwards doesn't seem to cross their minds - they've claimed plenty of times that they'll use them if they have them. As a result, the US and Israel (as well as other potential targets like Saudi Arabia) have much more incentive to actually do something about Iran. Which is why I predict that 'something', probably intense airstrikes, will occur in mid-November.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-20 09:38:04

Which is why I predict that 'something', probably intense airstrikes, will occur in mid-November.

If not American strikes (which aren't all that likely unless the situation takes a dramtic turn for the worse) then the Israelis will hit the site if Iran gets too close. Israel takes the threat very seriously and they do not have the same baggage about responding as we do.

We've got loose cannons on both sides over there, it could get real ugly real fast.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-20 09:54:42

Note that I didn't say who would do airstrikes. I'm pretty convinced that someone will, and that after the US elections will be the most convenient time diplomatically-speaking (it gets the best US response, and everyone else will be equally pissed no matter when you try it). Note that other interested parties might take a shot as well (among other states, the Saudis and other sunni states have always been very nervous about Iran's mullahs, and might try to pull a fast one, especially since there's a good chance that someone else will initially catch hell for it)

I also agree that it could get ugly in a hurry, but not that ugly - these are the same guys who fought Saddam to a draw, and we know how great his troops were.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-20 11:45:12

Negotiating a peaceful solution is the only way to go. Both side have nuclear weapons or have partners that have nuclear weapons. One slip and there she blows one flame broiled slightly erradiated earth coming right up. I like two kids playing around with a live grenade pulling the pin and banging on the grenade with hammer thinking that it won't blow up. When play with fait like that, there are generally some very nasty consequences for engaging in such folly. Only a fool would play this kind of game.

Larry,

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-20 19:06:55

CC:-

Israel takes the threat very seriously and they do not have the same baggage about responding as we do.

I think this is a fair assessment of the Israeli position. For very understandable reasons, they have a definite 'siege mentality', as I touched on before. They're surrounded by enemies who can't be reasoned with; enemies whose stated resolve is the elimination of the state of Israel.
I'm puzzled by the attitude of the Left towards Israel though. Every left-leaning group, from the chardonnay-swilling chattering classes in the leafy suburbs to the hardcore street-demonstrating International Socialists, blame Israel for all the trouble in the Middle East. The Islamic enemies of Israel are effectively fascists, they're all blatant misogynists, execution is a standard part of the 'justice' system, nobody has any human rights, and women aren't even seen as human anyhow (you can forget about 'a woman's right to choose' in Damascus or Tehran!! ). The last group of people to concentrate overtly on the eradication of the Jews were the Nazis, whom the Left despised utterly. Now the same Left appears to be supporting modern fascist states in the pursuit of the same anti-semitic objectives! ???
I can only reconcile this monstrous incongruity by assuming that Israel's association with America is the reason behind it. It appears that the Left will climb into bed with any organisation, of whatever disgusting political complexion, as long as that group is opposing the U.S.
Just suppose that Israel had been doing the same things these past 40 years, but with the aid and support of the former Soviet Union and today's Russia. Then, I suppose, we'd have had the support of the Left for Israel and against Islamic Palestinian terrorists.

How the loony left doesn't implode from its own illogical inconsistencies is, to me, a strong indication of the intellectual inadequacies of its adherents.

But back to the point: Yes, indeed, Israel will respond to the emerging threat in Iran. She has no choice but to do so and can hardly become more hated by the world at large than she appears to be at present, simply because America supports her. In terms of public relations, Israel has absolutely nothing to lose.

Trebuchet:-

... but not that ugly - these are the same guys who fought Saddam to a draw, and we know how great his troops were.

Well put!
I agree that a coalition invasion of Iran would be virtually as quick, clean and militarily successful as the conquest of Iraq. It would probably have far fewer 'mopping up' problems afterwards too, since Iran is the source of much of the trouble the coalition is experiencing in Iraq today and Syria would be nervous enough to want to cooperate(! ).
As others have pointed out, Iran is 'closer' to democracy in its general outlook than most other Islamic states and it may well be easier to establish a representative government there.

If President Bush wins the upcoming election, and I have a suspicion he will, then he might decide the best form of defence in the Middle East is an attack. The best justification for any war is a decisive victory. Iraq hasn't presented Bush with that decisive victory, but Iran just might, and it would sure take the Left's (rather limited) mind off Iraq and the elusive WMD, wouldn't it?!
In addition, the Iranian attempt at becoming a nuclear power is enough to give even an empty-headed chardonnay-socialist pause for thought, isn't it?
If not, then it looks like the West has forgotten the price of its own freedom.

Gennaro · 2004-09-20 20:55:00

Shaun Barrett wrote:

Right, they were constrained by fear; fear of something called "MAD" - Mutual Assured Destruction. But does this apply to Iran?

It does. If the Iranian nuclear power plant program is aimed at getting nuclear weapons, they need them to counter the nuclear threat from Israel, making sure the Likudniks won't unleash their capability in some weak moment or use it for blackmail. It's only natural if you place yourself in Iran's shoes.
Then there are of course other nuclear powers in the area, like India, Pakistan and China.

However, it could be the neocons are only back to banging the war drums. If the US is used another time to attack a peaceful country, rest assured America will eventually find itself very isolated. Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow and Brussels are most likely well aware what's going on here by now and patience is running out...

The North Korean question is best solved with reunification of the country, in my opinion. America should work together with South Korea on this one, not go in on their own with some lunatic military campaign. It will be solved in time, provided a backdoor is provided for the North Korean leadership. They can't go on forever and in their hearts they surely know this.

Dook · 2004-09-20 21:11:30

I recently saw a documentary about North Korea's Kim Jung-Il and my impression of him has changed some. I don't believe that he is crazy but rather a boy with too much power who wants world wide attention. I think he really wants the re-unification of Korea, certainly he wants to be the leader of all of Korea but I think over time we can convince him that it is better to unify Korea under a democratic leader. We would have to give him many concessions. He would certainly demand to keep a lot of money, billions perhaps, and he would have to be immune from criminal charges of any kind but it would lead to a safer world. There should be unification meetings between representatives of South Korea, the USA, China, and North Korea every six months.

The thing about Iran using nuclear weapons is that if it fails to detonate they can expect an instant nuclear response from Israel. Also Israel has some missile intercept capability so it's a huge roll of the dice. I don't believe any leader would take the chance. However I wouldn't be at all surprised if Iran covertly gave small nukes (small=5,000 lbs, not to mean suitcase nukes) to terrorists with the intent of attacking the port cities of Israel and the USA.

I don't believe that we can militarily go into Iran. World opinion is too far against us as it is. I think we are stuck with them and have to hope that the people there are soon able to remove their religious leaders and instill a real democracy.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-19 04:25:59

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#2 2004-09-19 07:12:41

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#3 2004-09-19 07:34:39

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#4 2004-09-19 08:36:29

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#5 2004-09-19 09:18:41

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#6 2004-09-19 14:46:06

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#7 2004-09-19 15:10:48

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#8 2004-09-19 15:34:45

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#9 2004-09-19 16:47:10

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#10 2004-09-19 18:38:43

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#11 2004-09-19 18:56:01

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#12 2004-09-19 19:02:25

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#13 2004-09-19 22:04:47

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#14 2004-09-19 23:01:53

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#15 2004-09-19 23:24:27

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#16 2004-09-20 05:31:29

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#17 2004-09-20 05:52:51

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#18 2004-09-20 06:04:02

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#19 2004-09-20 09:31:16

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#20 2004-09-20 09:38:04

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#21 2004-09-20 09:54:42

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#22 2004-09-20 11:45:12

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#23 2004-09-20 19:06:55

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#24 2004-09-20 20:55:00

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

#25 2004-09-20 21:11:30

Re: Iran rejects UN nuclear demands - yep - they're on the run now....

Board footer