U.S. Sizing Up Iran?

[ramonmercado]

Interesting discussion at this link, I'm pat c & Pushkin:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81703

 

[crunchy5]

I had a brief glimpse at a tv at lunch and if I got it correct they're being freed tonight. Without turning any countries into glass as well.

 

[crunchy5]

An interesting article concentrating on the possible US use of nukes against Iran possibly this month, could this explain unpopular bliars determination to stay in office until after May, no doubt costing the Labour party votes in the forthcoming elections.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=5309

The US and its allies started the psychological preparation of world public opinion for the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons to resolve 'the Iranian problem'. The US propaganda machine is working hard to create the impression that a 'surgically precise' use of the nuclear weapon with only limited consequences is possible. However, this has been known to be untrue since the 1945 US nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After the very first nuclear strike, it will become totally impossible to prevent the use of all of the available means of mass destruction. In the situation of a mass extermination of their nations, the conflicting sides will resort to whatever means they have without limitations. Therefore, not only the nuclear arsenals of various countries, including those whose nuclear status is not recognized officially, will come into play. No doubt, chemical and biological warfare (and, generally, any poisonous substances), which can be produced on the basis of minimal industrial and economic resources, will be used.

Currently, one can assert that peace and mankind are in great danger.

Consider the military-technical aspect of the situation. Practically, the operation's objective declared by the US - destroying some 1,500 targets on the territory of Iran - cannot be accomplished by the forces already amassed for the mission. This objective can only be met if tactical nuclear munitions are used.

An examination of the military-political aspect of the matter reveals even more significant facts. The attack on Iran is not planned to include a ground offensive. Strikes on selected military and industrial installations can cause a severe damage to the Iranian defense potential and economy. Casualties are likely to be substantial, but not catastrophic from the military point of view. At the same time, it is impossible to gain control of the territory of a country as large as Iran without a ground operation. The planned offensive will entail a consolidation of forces not only in Iran, but also in other Muslim countries and among the public throughout the world. The support for the country suffering from the US-Israeli aggression will soar. Certainly, Washington is aware that the result will be not the strengthening but the loss of US positions in the world. Consequently, the goal of the US attack against Iran has to be seen in a different light. The nuclear offensive must boost the use of nuclear blackmail in global politics by the US and fundamentally transform the world order.

Further evidence of the radicalization of the goals of the US and its allies is available. The early 2007 leaks, which exposed Israel's plans to use three nukes against Iran, were quite dangerous for a country in a hostile environment, but certainly they were deliberate. They meant that the decision on the character of Israel's activity had already been made, and all that remained to be done was to influence public opinion accordingly.

The pretext for the operation against Iran does not appear serious. Judging from both the technical and the political points of view, there is no possibility of it developing nuclear weapons in the near future.

One must remember that allegations of Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction were used by the US as a pretext for the war against the country. As a result, Iraq was devastated, and the civilian death toll rose to hundreds of thousands, but no evidence for the claims had ever been discovered.

The article carries on.

 

[morningstar667]

Interesting article Crunchy, this particular sentence rings especially true;

"The US has nothing to offer the rest of the world to save the declining dollar except for military operations like the ones in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq."
I just hope the Generals wrong about the April timing.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Iran celebrates 'day of nuclear energy'


President Ahmadinejad announced yesterday that Iran had defied the United Nations and started industrial-scale production of enriched uranium. He promised to defend the nuclear programme to the end as school bells rang out in celebration of a national day of nuclear energy. The Government also sent millions of text messages congratulating its citizens.

In Tehran, about 200 students formed a human chain at the Atomic Energy Organisation while chanting death to America and death to Britain. They later burnt the flags of both countries. The scenes drew swift condemnation from Washington where Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said neither the UN Security Council nor the international nuclear watchdog believe Irans assurances that their programme is peaceful in nature. He added: What we are looking for are reasonable Iranian [leaders to] see that it is not to the benefit of the Iranian people to continue to pursue the course on which they find themselves. President Ahmadinejads comments, 12 months to the day since Iran succeeded in enriching uranium and 27 years since it severed diplomatic relations with the US, included threatening language designed to stir nationalist sentiment. Our nation has until this day moved on a peaceful path, observing laws created by the world powers, and it is interested in continuing along this path, he said. But they should take care not to do something that makes Iran reconsider its behaviour, as the Iranian nation is capable of doing so. We recommend to them that they had better respect nations rights. Speaking at the enrichment plant in Natanz, President Ahmadinejad said: The great Iranian nation, which for past centuries has been a pioneer of science, will not allow some bullying powers to put obstacles in its path of progress by influencing the international community. We will go on to reach the summits, today. . . this country has joined the countries that produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale. In the enrichment process, uranium gas is pumped into a cascade of thousands of centrifuges, which spin the gas at supersonic speeds to purify it. Uranium enriched to low levels of 3 per cent or more can be used as fuel, while a far higher level above 90 per cent is needed for a weapon.

Ali Larijani, the chief negotiator on the issue, claimed that his country had begun injecting uranium gas into 3,000 centrifuges for enrichment. Previously Iran had been known to have only 328.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, had no immediate comment, but Germanys Foreign Ministry, which currently holds the EU presidency, said that the move showed Iran was definitively going in the wrong direction. The UN Security Council imposed limited sanctions against Iran in December, which were strengthened slightly last month to include travel bans against named individuals.

But Iranian state television reported yesterday that a Revolutionary Guard general supposedly under such restrictions had visited Russia a permanent member of the Security Council without difficulty.

General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said that his six-day journey to Moscow showed the ineffectiveness of the [Security Council] resolution. Andrei Krivtsov, a Russian foreign ministry spokesman, confirmed that General Zolqadr had visited. He said that the resolution did not prohibit visits by the listed individuals, but called for heightened vigilance directed first of all at people who are directly related to nuclear programmes suggesting that General Zolqadr was not.

A Foreign Office source suggested that President Ahmadinejads comments may have been directed primarily at hardline domestic critics of the Governments decision to release the detained British Service personnel. He cant allow himself to appear as if he is going soft, said the source. We are a little bit sceptical about whether that they have got as far as he is claiming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 633003.ece

I noticed on last night's Newsnight that Dr Fox, the shadow defence secretary, was calling for regime change. Foxy was tentative but clear on this issue. Given the Conservative's recent track record on regime change it might be reasonable to expect an end to Ahmedinijad's reign.

 

[ramonmercado]

Hands off the People of Iran Launch meetings
national | anti-war | event notice Monday April 09, 2007 11:38 by Anne McShane - Hands off the People of Iran Anne at hopoi dot info 0862343238
9-11 May, Cork, Dublin and Belfast

International tensions being ratcheted shows strong likelihood of attack on Iran. We need a principled solidarity campaign with the people of Iran, rather than its regime.

Meeting details:

Cork 9 May 7.30pm Victoria Hotel, Patrick Street;
Dublin 10 May, 7.30pm Teachers Club, 36 Parnell Square Dublin 1;
Belfast 11 May 7.30pm Queens University Belfast

Contact Anne McShane on [email protected] or on 086 2343238

The initiative to set up this important campaign was taken by Iranian political activists and organisations who oppose the Islamic regime in Iran and also stand against any imperialist sanctions or attack. It has links with students, womens' organisations and workers struggles in Iran who are fighting for their rights there and are also against US or UN intervention.

An organisation has been set up in Britain and meetings have taken place in the United States as well as in other European countries. See the website for more details of supporters and the founding statement, news from Iran, activities and recent statements - www.hopoi.org

Yassamine Mather, a leading Iranian political activist and writer will be the main speaker at the meetings in Cork, Dublin and Belfast to launch the Irish campaign. She will give details of the situation in Iran and the links that have been made with the movements there as well as an analysis of the current crisis.

Sign up to the campaign and come along to the meetings. Contact Anne McShane on [email protected] for more information.

Related Link: http://www.hopoi.org

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Probably a little too late, Ramon - the engine of propaganda might have lifted the story into the skies but its the wings of a goonish press that'll keep it up there.

Iranians' hostage bid number 2

IRAN-backed rebels tried to kidnap a British officer in Iraq with chloroform three weeks BEFORE the Navy hostage crisis.

The snatch bid at an Iraqi army base was foiled by a quick-thinking soldier.

Our revelation will heap more pressure on top brass for letting 15 marines and sailors stray so close to Iranian waters.

In the earlier bid at Camp Sparrowhawk, two insurgents pounced on a Danish major they thought was a Brit at 2am.

They gagged him with chloroform and started dragging him away unconscious.

But an armed officer from the Queens Royal Lancers forced the attackers to flee.

Days later Irans Revolutionary Guard threatened to snatch blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks.

Yet the Navy team from HMS Cornwall still went within two miles of Irans territorial waters.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer said: There has been a serious intelligence failure.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007180215,00.html

 

[ramonmercado]

Days later Irans Revolutionary Guard threatened to snatch blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks.

Well at least that would be showing some respect. If they dissed them then they would feed them to dogs or even pigs.

 

[rynner2]

Bush raises possibility of talks with Iran
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 4:07am BST 26/04/2007

President George W Bush has said his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could hold informal talks with Iranian leaders at an international conference on Iraq next week, signalling a significant shift in the US administration's stance towards the Islamic republic.

In a television interview, Mr Bush said Miss Rice could meet her Iranian counterpart on the sidelines of the conference being held in Egypt.

Earlier this week Miss Rice said that if Manouchehr Mottaki did not attend the meeting in Sharm el-Sheik it would be a "missed opportunity" and emphasized that America's aim in Iran was not regime change but a "change in the regime". [Well, there's a novelty!]

Mr Bush told the PBS network on Tuesday night that if a meeting did occur, Miss Rice's message to the Iranians would be: "Don't send weapons in [to Iraq] that will end up hurting our troops, and help this young democracy survive."

He said that it was too early for formal bilateral talks between the two countries, which have been at hostile odds since 1979, when revolutionary students stormed the American embassy in Teheran and Washington cut diplomatic ties.

Although there have been periodic diplomatic contacts, the Bush administration has resisted pressure at home and abroad to engage Iran in an effort to improve security in neighbouring Iraq, where Iran sends weapons and logistical and financial support to fellow Shia militants.

US policy began to change this spring when lower-level State Department officials met Iranian and Syrian diplomats at a regional conference in Baghdad.

Washington has combined softer words with raising its military profile in the region, sending in a second aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf and conducting massive air exercises.

It also continues to detain five Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Iraq suspected of abetting or plotting terror attacks.

What to do with the prisoners has reportedly caused major rows within the Bush administration, with Miss Rice urging their release and vice-president Dick Cheney strongly objecting.

Iranian officials meanwhile met EU negotiators yesterday in an effort to reach a compromise over its nuclear programme. On the eve of the talks, Western officials said a compromise might be suggested by which Iran can keep some of its uranium enrichment program rather than dismantling it entirely.

Teheran has ignored two United Nations deadlines to stop enrichment, a key stage towards building a nuclear bomb. It maintains that energy is the only goal of its nuclear programme.

http://tinyurl.com/276tww

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Typical - as soon as the Russkies want back in the mixer the US dumps its war games with Iran. Poor girl, she's been lead up to the alter again just to be dumped for an old flame. :lol:

 

[rynner2]

Maybe not:

Saved by the bomb

Senator McCain has hit upon a solution to all the Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran

Terry Jones
Saturday May 5, 2007
The Guardian

Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John McCain was asked what should be done about Iran. He responded by singing, "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran", to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann. (Join the hilarity and see for yourself on YouTube.) How can any thinking person disagree? I mean, any country with a president who doesn't shave properly and never wears a tie deserves what's coming to it - a lot of American bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don't miss out on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism.

The problem is how to unload enough bombs on Iran before next year's US election to bring about enough flag-waving to get the Republican party re-elected. This is essential if we are to safeguard the revenues of companies such as Halliburton - particularly at a time when the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is discovering what a shoddy job Halliburton has been doing. In projects at Nasiriya, Mosul and Hilla - declared successes by the US - inspectors have discovered buckled floors, crumbling concrete, failed generators and blocked sewage systems - due not to sabotage but largely to poor construction and lack of maintenance.

The trouble is that the re-election of the GOP is becoming more problematic as opinion turns against George Bush's little invasion of Iraq. Even Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah recently condemned the US action as "an illegal foreign occupation"; his nephew, Prince Bandar, hasn't been returning calls for weeks.

More worrying is the plummeting popularity of the party, as White House corruption becomes ever more difficult to disguise. The LA Times reports that what Representative Thomas M Davis III called a "poisonous" environment has begun to dent fundraising - an unheard-of problem for the Republicans.

So the only solution is to bomb Iran, as Senator McCain so wisely and amusingly suggests. The real issue is whether to use regular weapons or do the job properly and go nuclear.

Nuclear bombs have the advantage of being much bigger, and they will also pollute vast swathes of Iran and make much of the country uninhabitable for years. With a bit of luck some of the fallout will sweep into Iraq and finish off the job the US and UK have begun without incurring more costs.

But the biggest advantage of nuclear weapons is that the repercussions would be so enormous, the upsurge in terrorism so overwhelming, that the world would be totally changed. A year before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby signed a statement for the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative thinktank. They rather hoped for "some catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor" to kickstart their dream of a world run by US military might. A nuclear war would do the trick in spades. The Republican party could expect to stay in power for the next 50 or even 100 years.

Of course, a large proportion of the human race could be wiped out in the process, but that shouldn't be a problem as long as there are anti-radiation suits for White House and Pentagon staff. Such a shake-up would give the US a golden opportunity to corner what's left of the world's oil reserves.

In 1955 Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell said the world was faced by a "stark and dreadful and inescapable" choice: "Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?" Senator McCain wasn't bothered by such questions; the human race may be standing on a precipice, but the Republicans have a chance of permanent re-election.

· Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 33,00.html

(There are several Youtube clips, but not really worth looking at, IMHO!)

 

[crunchy5]

Worth noting however that McCain was meant to represent sensible moderation within the GOP, an ideal running mate for "vote for me or die"Rudy Giuliani. We're all fu*ked

 

[Anonymous]

That story makes me dread the next few years.

I mean there is all this hype about 2012, and now if I am to believe that story then we will face a catastrophie before the 2008 presidential elections.

Darn it.

:splat:

 

[wembley8]

Does it count as a nuclear war if only one side has nuclear weapons?

We don't call WWII a nuclear war...

 

[Anonymous]

That's a good point.

Nuclear devestation then.

Darn it.

:splat:

 

[Mal_Adjusted]

U.S. endorsed Iranian plans to build massive nuclear energy

U.S. endorsed Iranian plans to build massive nuclear energy industry
Cheney Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz behind Iran Nuclear Program initiated during Ford Administration

by Ed Haas

Global Research, March 6, 2006
Muckraker Report.

In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive that granted Iran the opportunity to purchase U.S. built reprocessing equipment and facilities designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.


When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.[1]

In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975)[2] and was the Ford Administration’s Secretary of Defense from 1975–1977.

The current President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Gerald Ford.[3] Wolfowitz is considered as a prominent architect of the Bush Doctrine, which has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States.

According to Washington Post Staff Writer Dafna Linzer, “Ford’s team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium – the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weopons builders.”[4]

What the current Bush Administration is asserting, particularly through its news agency Fox News, is that it needs to prevent Iran from achieving the exact same nuclear capabilities that President Ford and his key appointees, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were encouraging Iran to accomplish 30 years ago. Iran, a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, is guaranteed the right to develop peaceful nuclear power programs – regardless of whether the United States approves or disapproves the politics or political leadership of that country; a point that Iran has repeated over and over again. For 30 years, Iran has proclaimed that it needs nuclear power since its oil and gas supplies are limited, just like the United States, and therefore has the legal right to produce and operate nuclear power plants. Thirty years ago, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld agreed. Today, Cheney and Rumsfeld appear to be crawling out of their skins with uncontrollable militarized lust for control of Iranian oil fields via a U.S. occupied, Iran. The NEO-CON war drumbeaters have already devised their plans for the liberation of the people again, this time Iranian people, and making things all better, just like they have done in Iraq. Scary stuff, but it is true. In preparation, the Bush Administration has primed the mainstream media so effectively that 8 out of 10 Americans believe Iran poises an immediate nuclear threat to the United States. The President’s recent and risky travel to regional nuclear powers, Pakistan and India, no doubt also served as a strategic warning to those countries to prepare for the certain public backlash to be expected once the U.S. or Israel begins to drop bombs on Iran.

It is also worth noting that in 2000, the World Bank resumed making loans to Iran. As of June 30, 2004, the World Bank as made 51 loans valued at $2.6 billion to Iran. The World Bank gets its funds from the International Monetary Fund, which in turn, gets its money from member nation dues / contributions. The United States is required to contribute $37.2 billion per year into the IMF. The Federal Reserve Banking Cartel orchestrated this money scheme so that it can continue to print and loan astronomical numbers of debt notes. If the American people understood that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Congress have been funding many activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, most would be skeptical of the federal government’s current claim that Iran’s 30 year old, U.S. sanctioned, nuclear program is somehow now an immediate threat to the security of the United States. The IMF and the World Bank create just enough degrees of separation to shield the government from the people recognizing that the federal government has fed the dog well that it now claims will bite if we do not ‘put it down’ with a pre-emptive strike.

With Wolfowitz at the helm of the World Bank, one has to wonder if once again the Federal Reserve has positioned itself to fund both sides of a warring conflict. One thing is certain; loaning money to fund both sides of a war is a perfected craft of the member banks of the Federal Reserve, which is interested only in loan collateral and interest payments. Patriotism is not part of the equation. What is most disturbing about the relationship between the Fed, IMF, and World Bank is that the $37.2 billion the U.S. is obligated to pay to the IMF annually, is actually secured by the American taxpayer. We the People, and the ability of the U.S. Congress to confiscate our wealth through that unconstitutional apparatus referred to as a federal income tax, makes loaning money to the Islamic Republic of Iran easy because if Iran defaults on its World Bank loans, the U.S. portions of the loans work their way back to the lender of last resort, which is the U.S. Congress. When the U.S. Congress responds to failed loans and failed banking institutions, they assume responsibility for the loan amount, and pass the burden of repayment onto the American people.

Finally, but very much part of the U.S. government’s charade aimed at deceiving the American people into believing that the U.S. has played no part in the development of Iran or its nuclear power programs, is the absolute economic threat that Iran poses to the global value of the U.S. dollar. Unless the U.S. intervenes, on March 20, 2006 the world will have the option of purchasing oil with euros instead of dollars through the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse. The Iran Oil Bourse will be the third exchange in which global oil transactions will be executed. While financial analysts debate whether such an exchange operating solely in euros will have the potential to collapse the U.S. economy, the complete silence of the mainstream media regarding this most important untold story can be interpreted as a sign that this suggested economic threat is real. As the Bush Administration has proven itself to be the most dishonest, secretive presidency in the history of the United States, it has repeatedly demonstrated that the truth about its motives and agendas can only be found in what is not being reported to the American people. And if the Iran nuclear threat rhetoric is the firewall that the U.S. government is hiding the U.S. dollar global supremacy behind, than any military action in Iran will be solely on behalf of the member banks of the Federal Reserve – at the expense of American sons and daughters serving in the U.S. military and at the burden of the U.S. taxpayer who is already indebted to the federal government to the tune of $28 thousand, which is each and every American’s current share of the Federal Reserve / U.S. Congress banking cartel produced national debt - $28,000 and growing faster than ever!

Here’s a patriotic challenge and very American gut check for your consideration: Next time you hold your children and / or grandchildren, look them in the eye and explain to them how they are, right at this very moment, indebted to the federal government of the United States of America, to the tune of $28,000, and then ask yourself how you allowed it to happen. Sobering fact that feels better to ignore, does it not? But hell, we’re spreading democracy, right? I don’t think so, and hopefully soon, neither will you.

Freelance writer / author, Ed Haas, is the editor and columnist for the Muckraker Report. Get smart. Read the Muckraker Report. To learn more about Ed’s current and previous work, visit Crafting Prose.

Notes

[1] The White House, Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/, [Accessed March 4, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, Biography – Donald H. Rumsfeld, http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html, [Accessed March 4, 2006]

[3] Washington Post, Realism, Rewarded, George F. Will, May 12, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01815.html, [Accessed March 4, 2006]

[4] Washington Post, Past Arguments Don’t Square with Current Iran Policy, Dafna Linzer, March 27, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar26.html, [Accessed March 4, 2006]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=2067

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

That directive predates the current Iranian regime, though. I'm not really sure what relevance the fact that they gave permission to what was a friendly regime at the time to develop nuclear power has to today's situation. The article seems to be suggesting that there's a double standard in the differing postions.

 

[lkb3rd]

Worth noting however that McCain was meant to represent sensible moderation within the GOP, an ideal running mate for "vote for me or die"Rudy Giuliani. We're all fu*ked

Pay attention to Ron Paul. Most polls showed him winning the gop debate, yet the "news" outlets have not reported it that way.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Worth noting however that McCain was meant to represent sensible moderation within the GOP, an ideal running mate for "vote for me or die"Rudy Giuliani. We're all fu*ked

Pay attention to Ron Paul. Most polls showed him winning the gop debate, yet the "news" outlets have not reported it that way.

I've seen those polls and they look a little rigged to me. The percentages he was getting were overwhelming and given that the other candidates probably have their own much bigger core supports it seems a little unlikely that anyone, let alone an outsider, would be getting that sort of backing.

 

[lkb3rd]

He has a really strong internet support base, so that may have accounted for some of his online votes. In any case, he is for real conservative values, constitutional law and less government and less intervention in foreign countries, which i think is more in line with what a lot of people think than the other candidates. I don't dismiss it so easily as you do when one candidate who is an "outsider" wins overwhelmingly and it is quickly written off as rigged. Most people are sick of the direction the "insiders" are taking the country.
Sorry to sidetrack the thread

 

[lkb3rd]

That directive predates the current Iranian regime, though. I'm not really sure what relevance the fact that they gave permission to what was a friendly regime at the time to develop nuclear power has to today's situation. The article seems to be suggesting that there's a double standard in the differing postions.

It certainly calls their judgement and foresight into question.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

It certainly calls their judgement and foresight into question.

I don't see why it does. You can't legislate for what might happen 30 years into the future. The alternative would have been that they would have refused an ally rights that they were allowed under international law. At the very least they would have risked losing an ally and ended up in a similar situation to the one they're in now.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

He has a really strong internet support base, so that may have accounted for some of his online votes. In any case, he is for real conservative values, constitutional law and less government and less intervention in foreign countries, which i think is more in line with what a lot of people think than the other candidates. I don't dismiss it so easily as you do when one candidate who is an "outsider" wins overwhelmingly and it is quickly written off as rigged. Most people are sick of the direction the "insiders" are taking the country.
Sorry to sidetrack the thread

I tend not to accept what might be posted on Prison Planet so easily, myself.

 

[Hanslune]

I think the US position then and now is the same. You (Iran) can develop nuclear power but not weapons. The present regime is doing a good job of making it LOOK like they are developing nuclear power as a step towards weapons.

I would recommend you start another thread of Ron Paul, unless he's changed direction recently, he use to be a far or 'hard' right candidate who would have limited appeal to the US mainstream. For a candidate to win the presidency they need to get as close to the average American as possible (hugging the 50% mark) RP is a bit out in right field for that.

 

[crunchy5]

It certainly calls their judgement and foresight into question.

I don't see why it does. You can't legislate for what might happen 30 years into the future. The alternative would have been that they would have refused an ally rights that they were allowed under international law. At the very least they would have risked losing an ally and ended up in a similar situation to the one they're in now.

In all fairness to the neocons no one wanted them to see 30 years in advance just 2, even they wouldn't deny that US intel dropped a bollock over the Mullahs and the Shah episode of the US Empire in colour.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

In all fairness to the neocons no one wanted them to see 30 years in advance just 2, even they wouldn't deny that US intel dropped a bollock over the Mullahs and the Shah episode of the US Empire in colour.

True but if they had started to treat Iran as a pariah based on what could happen it would probably make it more likely that it would happen. Also, they would still have had the ability to carry out surgical strikes should there appear to be any likelihood that a weapons programme was being sought by a hostile regime. As long as they had the Shah in their pocket they wouldn't have to worry about this.

 

[Jerry_B]

Also, during the Shah's regime there was no notion of people like Khomeni coming to power as he and various other ayatollah's had been kept sweet by payments from the US since the 1950s. With this in mind, I doubt it would ever have occured to Cheney, etc. that someone like Khomeni would've ever come to power and that Iran would ever become any sort of rogue nuclear threat.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Quite off topic but I found this amusing for some reason.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/59816.html

What's he worried about? Does he think the Yanks are going to send Jerry Garcia over to dose him?

 

[Hanslune]

Hehe, this is still quite common. Being a hater of tea I often have to keep busy with the sugar cubes to keep them from offering more of the stuff. The younger folks have moved away from that custom (and put the sugar in the tea) but I suspect it's still the way in Iran proper.

Well in the UAE they smuggle, porn, cigs and alcohol to Iran on a daily basis so I guess they'll have to add sugar cubes to list!

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Iranian group challenges EU terror listing

BRUSSELS, May 10 (Reuters) - Iranian resistance group, the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran, has launched legal action to annul its listing as a terror group by the European Union and to win damages, it said on Thursday.

The European Court of First Instance last year thwarted an EU move to freeze the funds of the PMOI, the armed wing of France-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) which says it renounced military activity in 2001.

But the 27-nation bloc has kept the group on its blacklist, saying the court, Europe's second highest, annulled an old list and not its most recent version, where the group also appears.

The PMOI has bases in Iraq. It began as a leftist-Islamist opposition to the late Shah of Iran but fell out with Shi'ite clerics who took power after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"The PMOI's claim is for annulment, damages amounting to over 1 million euros ($1.35 million) and costs," the group said in a statement released at a news conference in Brussels.

The court had annulled the bloc's decision to blacklist the group for failing to give a fair hearing or adequate reasons.

The EU has since sent the group a letter explaining its reasons and EU foreign ministers agreed last month to inform groups and people in future why they are put on its list of terrorist organisations.

The NCRI has dismissed that response as cosmetic and accuses the EU of seeking to appease the Iranian leadership as part of its efforts to get Tehran to negotiate over a nuclear programme the West suspects is a cover for making an atom bomb.

The EU blacklist includes the Palestinian Hamas group, Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Blacklisting means groups are banned and have assets frozen.

David Vaughan, a British lawyer representing the PMOI, told reporters the group had asked the Court of First Instance to examine the legal dispute as a priority.

However he acknowledged there was little chance of the court imposing sanctions on the European Council, the EU body responsible for the listing, even if its interpretation was deemed incorrect.

"But then there would be a big legal battle," he said.

The PMOI is said by Western analysts to have little support in Iran because of its collaboration with Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10111655.htm