Iran's Nukes

[hamish]

Here's a short flash animation on bunkers busters from The Union of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

[hamish]

More on this topic

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12747.htm
Extracts
"Cirincione says he believes there will be secret strikes announced by Bush after they happen. But first, he says, Bush should be expected to go to the U.S. Congress for authorization before mid-term elections in November, while Republicans still control the House of Representatives and the Senate."

Haass also warned that such a strike would likely push oil prices above $100 (U.S.) per barrel, setting off an economic chain reaction that could lead to global recession. He predicts a certain increase in anti-Americanism in Europe, further rage against the U.S. in the Arab and Muslim world, and a questioning of U.S. ties in Russia and China.

From The Times
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12752.htm
There's one thing about the third and second last paragraphs in this report - aren't covert US agents already working undercover with this MEK????

[Saint Tom]

great resources there Hamish

[hamish]

great resources there Hamish

Cheers Saint Tom - TBH - lot lifted from Information Clearing House and sites linked off that.

More stuff later.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12761.htm

Extract
"The parallels to the run-up to to war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was "no war plan on my desk" despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion. Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well."

Authors
Richard Clarke and Steven Simon were, respectively, national coordinator for security and counterterrorism and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council.
Clarke was a member of the Bush cabinet for a while.

[hamish]

Some more good stuff

First article is more anti-Israeli lobby in Washington than Israel but they are connected. TBH brutally honest if I was Israeli I would be lobbying too BUT can both be done as well as ensuring the Palestinians get a non-Bantu-like state. Israel would be insane to attack or encourage a US attack on Iran - it makes them LESS safe - Iran supports Hizbullah and now Hamas so you'd have even more suicide bombers if Iran is attacked.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12778.htm

Extract
"....the premise that a military attack on Iran will cause the people to lose faith in their government and result in regime change.
A military attack on Iran will have the opposite effect. The people will rally to their government, and any hope of regime change will be dead. That people will rally around their existing leaders in the face of an attack by a foreign power is as certain as sunrise. Neither Israel nor the U.S. could do a greater favor for the ruling mullahs and Iran's president than to launch an attack. It would cement their hold on power."

Republican Congressman Ron Paul breaks ranks
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12773.htm

Extract
"But we cannot underestimate the irrational, almost manic desire of some neoconservatives to attack Iran one way or another, even if it means crippling a major source of oil and destabilizing the worldwide economy."

Israel may have to go it alone
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=42058
&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

I wish the Iranian Mullahs would put a gag on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mouth - he's just as much a war-pimp as the neo-cons:(

Why doesn't this bloke do the decent thing and join the Republican party?? He's just a Bush shill.
The following from the Jerusalem Post via ICH
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498871794&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Warning Letter to President Bush
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12769.htm
Extract
“Once the U.S. uses a nuclear weapon again, it will heighten the probability that others will too,” the physicists write. “In a world with many more nuclear nations and no longer a ‘taboo’ against the use of nuclear weapons, there will be a greatly enhanced risk that regional conflicts could expand into global nuclear war, with the potential to destroy our civilization.”

[ken foree]

stratfor's free intelligence report (sort've a geopolitical/business forecasting firm) has this as its conclusion this week:

But first there is the reality that exists now. The United States has too many enemies and too few forces through which to impose its will. As in World War II and the Cold War (the author had previously referred to the u.s. aligning with stalin v. hitler in ww2 and nixon going to china during the cold war), splitting the enemy is a practical imperative that precedes all moral imperatives. In this case, that means playing off the various factions within the Muslim world and making the best deal possible with one power or another. In any deal, the United States will wind up allied with someone that the Americans disapprove of, much as their future ally will disapprove of them.

The United States may well wind up making a deal with Iran over Iraq. Alternatively, a Sunni coalition led by Saudi Arabia might give Washington the opportunity to negotiate with the Baathist guerrillas in the Sunni Triangle. Whichever path is followed, it will be condemned by both left and right for dozens of excellent moral reasons.

Bush has been pursuing the path of pragmatism, however clumsily or adroitly, for months now. He will make a deal with someone because going it alone is not an option. The current situation in Iraq cannot be sustained, and all presidents ultimately respond to reality. Bush might have to eat some words about democracy and the United States' commitment thereto, but if Roosevelt could speak of the Four Freedoms while working with Josef Stalin, all things are possible.

[dancinpants]

Just because Iran build a nuke doesn't mean they'll use it. They are as entitle to a nuclear DETERRENT as anyone. I seriously doubt they would use one anyway - despite there Presidents wish to wipe Israel off the map. Bottom line is if Iran where to attack Israel with a nuke - IRAN would be wiped off the map the next day. The States ain't gonna use a nuke in Iran because its just not that clear cut. A recent study revealed (can't remember the source - sorry!) that if the US dropped one of their bunker buster nukes everything within a 100 mile radius would die, BUT almost as bad as that - the fall out could reach as far as India. There's far too many toes to step on.

Apparently they are years away from having the capability of producing a nuclear bomb anyway. Containment of Iran is the best bet right now.

[hamish]

When "Diplomacy" Means War

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12785.htm

Extract
When reality can't hold a candle to perception, then reality is apt to become imperceptible. And in matters of war and peace, when powerful policy wonks in Washington effectively strive for appearances to be deceiving, the result is a pantomime of diplomacy that's scarcely like the real thing. When the actual goal is war, the PR task is to make a show of leaving no diplomatic stone unturned.


Next post below, some extracts to lead in....
Interesting to note what the Iranian President REALLY said about the Holocaust - disgusting and all as it was. Did he really deny it?? I make no defence for this idiot but is our media spinning also?? My reading is that he begrudgingly believes it but in a most hyprdritical manner.

"'If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime

There again we find the quotation already rendered by n24: "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth." We can see that this is completely different from what is published by e.g. the DPA - the massacre against the Jews is a fairy-tale. What Ahmadinejad does is not denying the Holocaust. No! It is dealing out criticism against the mendacity of the imperialistic powers who use the Holocaust to muzzle critical voices and to achieve advantages concerning the legitimization of a planned war. This is criticism against the exploitation of the Holocaust


Full text
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?

I'm no fan of the Iranian PM - I reckon he's just a mirror image of Bubble Boy. BUT - the full text, above, makes it clear that the Western media is deliberately misquoting his statements.
Ahmadinejab is a pr!ck but it doesn't make it right for the Western Media to falsify his speeches - no matter how reprehensible they are - two wrongs don't make a right. This just amps up the war-pimping from both sides.

[hamish]

Rocketing US war spending under fire

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rocketing-us-war-spending-under-fire/2006/04/20/1145344222782.html

Extracts
The study found that 40 per cent of the water and sanitation network in Baghdad was damaged during the past three years and still has not been repaired

THE BILL FOR IRAQ

2003 $US48 billion ($65 billion)


2004 $US59 billion

2005 $US81 billion

2006 $US94 billion (estimated)

US casualties 2378 dead, 17,549 wounded**

**This doesn't count US soldiers suffering from trauma and other psychological damage - estimate including these factors - 60,000. HG

More detail on this from Washington Post via ICH
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12791.htm

Pilger puts the boot in
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12798.htm

Extract
Language is perhaps the most crucial battleground. Noble words such as "democracy," "liberation," "freedom," and "reform" have been emptied of their true meaning and refilled by the enemies of those concepts. The counterfeits dominate the news, along with dishonest political labels, such as "left of center," a favorite given to warlords such as Blair and Bill Clinton; it means the opposite. "War on terror" is a fake metaphor that insults our intelligence. We are not at war. Instead, our troops are fighting insurrections in countries where our invasions have caused mayhem and grief, the evidence and images of which are suppressed

[hamish]

Good article from Scott Ritter (a Republican) -

A Path to Peace with Iran
Extract
The problems that plague Washington DC on the issue of Iran are the same problems that haunt America overall regarding Iraq -- no clear understanding of why we as a nation are doing what we are doing where we are doing it, and absolutely no system of accountability for those who are implicated, directly through their actions or indirectly through abrogation of duties and responsibilities, in embroiling America in such senseless conflict

Thomas Jefferson was waaaaaaaaay ahead of his time

"The country is headed toward a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and monied corporations, and if this tendency continues it will be the end of freedom and democracy, the few will be ruling and riding over the plundered plowman and the beggar.... Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

[dancinpants]

US casualties 2378 dead, 17,549 wounded**

**This doesn't count US soldiers suffering from trauma and other psychological damage - estimate including these factors - 60,000. HG



Heres another little known thing I heard on the the "Alex Bennet" show on Sirius Left 146...if a US soldier is wounded in Iraq, gets flown to Ramstein in Germany and dies on the operating table there, the death isn't "registered" in the US Army body count for the war in Iraq. To put it simply if you were shot in Iraq and died in Germany from your wounds you're not included in the "2378 dead" list.

That being the case how many have really died?

[hamish]

Heres another little known thing I heard on the the "Alex Bennet" show on Sirius Left 146...if a US soldier is wounded in Iraq, gets flown to Ramstein in Germany and dies on the operating table there, the death isn't "registered" in the US Army body count for the war in Iraq. To put it simply if you were shot in Iraq and died in Germany from your wounds you're not included in the "2378 dead" list.

That being the case how many have really died?

Very true dancinpants, I remember that too. Extrapolate that too to take in the families effected. Guess we're talking tens of thousands without a husband, brother, son, daughter, wife, sister etc etc Plus all the sneaky ways the Bubble Boy regime has reduced funding for vets.


1 Million Dead Iranians
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12801.htm

Extract
This potential death toll is not pacifist hyperbole; it comes from a National Academy of Sciences study sponsored by the Pentagon itself, as The Progressive reports. The NAS study calculated the kill rate from "bunker-busting" tactical nukes used to take out underground facilities -- such as those housing much of Iran's nuclear power program. Another simulation using Pentagon software was even more specific, measuring the aftermath from a "limited" nuclear attack on the main Iranian underground site in Esfahan. The result? Three million people killed by radiation in just two weeks. Bush now has about 50 nuclear "earth-penetrating weapons" at his disposal

[hamish]

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions - 1945 to 1999

By William Blum

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12820.htm
Opening extract
1999 - "ZMag" -- -The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.


John Reid's comments, below, are almost straight out of Orwell's "1984"

The madness of bombing Iran
By Robert Skidelsky
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12827.htm

Extract:
John Reid, the Defence Secretary, has recently been arguing that the right of pre-emption should be turned into the right of prevention

[Hither green]

John Reid's comments, below, are almost straight out of Orwell's "1984"

The madness of bombing Iran
By Robert Skidelsky
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12827.htm

Extract:
John Reid, the Defence Secretary, has recently been arguing that the right of pre-emption should be turned into the right of prevention

Reid really scares me. Particularly the way that he's able to twist logic.


"If they attack us we will defend ourselves and if defending ourselves... means taking pre-emptive action we will do that. If they attack our troops we will attack back, in some cases taking the initiative."
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/Bulletins/PressReview/fullpressreview.htm?bulletindate=25-Apr-2006#'Agressive'+Afghanistan+role+acknowledged

Taking the initiative in defending oneself - interesting concept. I wonder if I could get away with that, attacking a complete stranger then explaining that I was just being pro-actively defensive as the stranger may have attacked me first.

[rebs23]

Everything in politics comes back to the economy and it seems pretty clear at this stage that we are going to pay dearly over the coming years for the war in Iraq. I can't see the US attacking Iran militarily as they clearly cannot afford it or have the manpower/resources to deal with the repercussions.

Politically Bush and the Republicans are being hammered at home as the war in Iraq becomes more unpopular. The Iranians attempting to build Nuclear Weapons will be dealt with through the UN.

The biggest concern for the Bush Administration is an exit strategy out of Iraq.

As an aside it is reported in todays papers that German Neo Nazi's are planning marches in sympathy with the Iranians view of the Holocost. Interesting how extremist opinions of any persuasion find common ground with each other.

[hamish]

As an aside it is reported in todays papers that German Neo Nazi's are planning marches in sympathy with the Iranians view of the Holocost. Interesting how extremist opinions of any persuasion find common ground with each other.

It is indeed rebs23, particularly when those thugs firebomb and attack Turkish folks on a regular basis.
I made reference to a website above where extreme right wingers now support Muslims to fit in with the formers' anti-Semitism.
Another version of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
Strange days indeed, as John Lennon sand.

[hamish]

Taking the initiative in defending oneself - interesting concept. I wonder if I could get away with that, attacking a complete stranger then explaining that I was just being pro-actively defensive as the stranger may have attacked me first.

LOL:D :D Beautifully put Hither Green. Anyone in mind???:D

[ken foree]

The biggest concern for the Bush Administration is an exit strategy out of Iraq.


i'd say it's more winning the mid-term elections. karl rove was just reassigned for this exact purpose. that way they can continue doing whatever they want in iraq (which doesn't seem to include an exit strategy at all, considering the fact they're building humongo permanent military bases all over the desert there)

[hamish]

i'd say it's more winning the mid-term elections. karl rove was just reassigned for this exact purpose. that way they can continue doing whatever they want in iraq (which doesn't seem to include an exit strategy at all, considering the fact they're building humongo permanent military bases all over the desert there)

Ken - if you pop over to the "Islam" thread I loaded a CNN video yesterday which shows all the American bases in the Middle East - usually close to pipelines:rolleyes: . I think they've built four or five perma-bases in Iraq with all the mod cons - y'know, McDonalds, Pizza Hut etc.
Here are a couple of things realted to your posts.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12839.htm
Here's a good one.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12606.htm

Here's an even better view of those bases - with a picture
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Zeese24.htm

Wonder should the Iran's Nukes and Islam threads be merged Dahamsta since both issues, in geopolitical terms, are merging anyway?????

How about "Iran, Iraq, Islam"???

[ken foree]

Ken - if you pop over to the "Islam" thread I loaded a CNN video yesterday which shows all the American bases in the Middle East - usually close to pipelines:rolleyes: . I think they've built four or five perma-bases in Iraq with all the mod cons - y'know, McDonalds, Pizza Hut etc.
Here are a couple of things realted to your posts.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12839.htm
Here's a good one.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12606.htm

Here's an even better view of those bases - with a picture
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Zeese24.htm


ahh bringing our u.s. disposable culture to the cradle of life, can armagaeddon be far behind! :rolleyes: thank you herr hamish i'll have a read of these over me morning orange

[hamish]

Hmmmmmmmm**, like that Herr Hamish name:)

Foreign Office lawyers warn: Support for Bush military action would be illegal.
Army warns: we're too stretched to cope with any more military action
By Westminster Editor James Cusick and Neil Mackay

http://www.sundayherald.com/55316
Extract
Foreign Office lawyers have formally advised Jack Straw that it would be illegal under international law for Britain to support any US-led military action against Iran.
The advice given to the Foreign Secretary in the last few weeks is thought to have prompted his open criticism last week of Tony Blair’s backing for President George Bush, who has refused to rule out military action against the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad


but Bliar plunges even further into la-la land

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1818475.html?menu=

**copyright dfx.

[CollegeTillIDie]

hamish

given the so -called religious implications of Iran's nuclear programme, would it be fair to call any weapons developed in Tehran.,,, The J Bomb? :D

J=Jihad

[hamish]

hamish

given the so -called religious implications of Iran's nuclear programme, would it be fair to call any weapons developed in Tehran.,,, The J Bomb?

J=Jihad

How about the A-Bomb after the first letter in the Iranian PM's name.:)

Glad that The Guardian got rid of Rod Liddle and David Aaronovitch.


War Pimp alert.

We may have to bomb Iran
Rod Liddle

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2157918,00.html
Extract
Natanz seems an agreeable little town, perched nearly 5,000ft up in the majestic mountains of central Iran, full of dusty relics of Alexander the Great and black-clad peasants scurrying hither and thither. It is a shame, then, that we may soon be obliged to bomb it to smithereens. An even bigger shame, though, if we don’t.

I love the "we" bit when ever chickenhawks advocate military action.:rolleyes:

[dancinpants]

Was listening to a radio show yesterday (hamish you might like it actually - check out www.theyoungturks.com ), and they mentioned that its been reported in some middle eastern newspapers and maybe the Boston Globe too, that the States have asked Turkey if they can use airbases there, from which to bomb Iran...should they need to. Turkey told them to f**k off. BUT, and this is the best bit, the States told them that if they did allow them use of the bases that they would build a NUCLEAR REACTOR for the Turks. Now if these newspaper reports are true, that is the most unbelievable thing I've ever heard.

[hamish]

Was listening to a radio show yesterday (hamish you might like it actually - check out www.theyoungturks.com ), and they mentioned that its been reported in some middle eastern newspapers and maybe the Boston Globe too, that the States have asked Turkey if they can use airbases there, from which to bomb Iran...should they need to. Turkey told them to f**k off. BUT, and this is the best bit, the States told them that if they did allow them use of the bases that they would build a NUCLEAR REACTOR for the Turks. Now if these newspaper reports are true, that is the most unbelievable thing I've ever heard.

Thanks a millions dancinpants - will indeedy check it out.If you check out the Information Clearing House website it has a few articles on that Turkey/Nuclear issue. Turkey has now increased its military to 250,000 soldiers on the Iraq border and has gone into Iraq up to eight kilometres chasing Kurdish rebels.
The unfortunate Kurds are getting it all sides - bombed by the Syrians in Syria, hit by the Turks inside and outside Turkey, bombed yesterday by the Iranians in North Iran.
And now Muhammad El Sadr has moved 10,000 Shi-ites militia up to Kurdistan -especially 'round the capital city - to put a stop to a Kurds only situation.
Needless to say, the Green Zone government is powerless and the Yanks are totally clueless what to do now. Do they take a side or keep all the various elements apart - impossible anyway.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. were warned this would happen - fcuking b@stards went ahead anyway.
Under Article 51 of the Geneva Convention you can be charged with war crimes if you preemptively attack another country.
But, of course, those cnuts will get off scot free.
There is no justice - absolutely none.
Personally, I'd love to see a big long line of hanged b@stards, starting at one end with Bin Laden, Zarqawi, El Sadr and the rest of those Islamofascists with Bush, Cheney(an evil b@stard if ever there was one),Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle etc on the other end.
They're all the same to me - depraved, amoral b@stards.:mad:

[hamish]

I do not, under any circumstances, accept responsibility for the Islam thread being locked - I posted numerous opinions and sources - I didn't start the name calling FFS. I invited counter arguments FFS. What the hell am I supposed to do?? But if someone starts to insult me - or anyone else for that matter - with personal or racist drivel then I'm not fcuking lying down - period. Locking the thread means the racist has won.
If I'm banned - so be it.
AND I DID report that person to the moderator when he started the name calling - he got a slap on the wrist. :rolleyes:
A damn good thread was locked because a REPORTED troll was let away with it.:mad:

Now, back on topic.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12952.htm
Extract
There’ve been numerous reports ( Sy Hersh, Scott Ritter and Col. Sam Gardiner) that US forces are already inside Iran executing covert operations and locating sites for future US bombing raids. If this is true, we can assume that the logistical groundwork of moving troops and supplies to the region is already underway making war inevitable.

[dahamsta]

Hamish, you keep taking threads off-topic with your tantrums, I'll keep closing them.

If you have a complaint, there is a complaints procedure outlined in the thread I linked at the end of the last thread.

If we all ignored procedures, it'd be chaos around herel Like every other Irish footy site. Is that what you want?