The Iran War

Niseg wrote:

As I might have mentioned we Israelis have a lot of different oppressions ... The article in Israel Today also mentioned a well known fact. Israel have learned from Holocaust that we Jews can't trust the gentiles to save us or protect us. This turned Israel into a trust none(and spy on everyone) country especially in terms of national security. Israel will not warn anyone or ask for anyone permission before going to war.

Just wanted to say that I especially look forward to the responses to this. And Niseg ... thank you for putting yourself out there. I mean it ... although I seriously disagree with you I have to give you props for sticking with it.

Niseg is making it sound like Israel's some kind of rogue state.

Niseg wrote:

As I might have mentioned North Koreans have a lot of different oppressions ... The article from the North Korean News Agency also mentioned a well known fact. Koreans have learned from the Japanese Occupation that we Koreans can't trust the rest of the world to save us or protect us. This turned North Korea into a trust none(and spy on everyone) country especially in terms of national security. North Korea will not warn anyone or ask for anyone permission before going to war.

FTFY

Niseg wrote:

The article in Israel Today also mentioned a well known fact. Israel have learned from Holocaust that we Jews can't trust the gentiles to save us or protect us.

You do realize that if it wasn't for gentiles there might not be any Jews left and there absolutely wouldn't be an Israel? Unless of course you had some massive Jewish army in the Arctic in 1944 that no one knew about.

Bear wrote:
Niseg wrote:

The article in Israel Today also mentioned a well known fact. Israel have learned from Holocaust that we Jews can't trust the gentiles to save us or protect us.

You do realize that if it wasn't for gentiles there might not be any Jews left and there absolutely wouldn't be an Israel? Unless of course you had some massive Jewish army in the Arctic in 1944 that no one knew about.

*jots down really good idea for historical "what if" science fiction novel/screenplay*

DSGamer wrote:

*jots down really good idea for historical "what if" science fiction novel/screenplay*

I'm willing to bet it's already been done

Bear wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

*jots down really good idea for historical "what if" science fiction novel/screenplay*

I'm willing to bet it's already been done :)

The key part is the part where they come from Antarctica. That's the twist that makes that solid gold. I doubt that has been done.

Rand Paul blocks the Senate from unanimously approving a new set of sanctions on Iran, by himself. The same piece describes just how heavily AIPAC is lobbying for war, and how another group of Senators is willingly obliging them.

Niseg wrote:

Lots of news on this topic . Today it was published that Israel is going to attack Iran from Azerbaijan which was followed by this : Analysis: US thwarting Israeli strike on Iran

I wish there were some truth to his claims that the US is attempting to avoid war. Sadly, the author's fantasy is not true.

Aetius wrote:

Rand Paul blocks the Senate from unanimously approving a new set of sanctions on Iran, by himself. The same piece describes just how heavily AIPAC is lobbying for war, and how another group of Senators is willingly obliging them.

Wow ... I had written him off as a wing nut but this deserves some credit. I don't know if he is motivated by something other than what he appears to but I appreciate what he is doing here.

absurddoctor wrote:
Niseg wrote:

Lots of news on this topic . Today it was published that Israel is going to attack Iran from Azerbaijan which was followed by this : Analysis: US thwarting Israeli strike on Iran

I wish there were some truth to his claims that the US is attempting to avoid war. Sadly, the author's fantasy is not true.

If it were true my respect for Obama's geo-political maneuverings would have been somewhat repaired. I would like to think he can play the game but I've not seen any indication that he could pull off this level of sleight of hand. Would be the way to go though with the relationship we have with Israel ... I just don't think this Administration has the juice.

President Obama gives final approval for the oil sanctions.

Iran's customers are already taking steps to work around the sanctions, mostly by eliminating the use of the dollar in trading.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made clear Saturday that time is running out for diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program and said talks aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon would resume in mid-April.

With speculation over a possible U.S. or Israel military attack adding urgency to the next round of discussions in Istanbul set for April 13, Clinton said Iran's "window of opportunity" for a peaceful resolution "will not remain open forever."

Iraq all over again.

Only U.S. allies are allowed to have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan can have them. North Korea and Iran cannot. That is the government policy in a nutshell.

Bear wrote:
Niseg wrote:

The article in Israel Today also mentioned a well known fact. Israel have learned from Holocaust that we Jews can't trust the gentiles to save us or protect us.

You do realize that if it wasn't for gentiles there might not be any Jews left and there absolutely wouldn't be an Israel? Unless of course you had some massive Jewish army in the Arctic in 1944 that no one knew about.

Yeah I heard an expert in international law saying that we should be thankful for what the League of Nations did for us. I've also read the British Mandate and many who did know the Brits betrayed it. I'm currently watching the Israel independence war documentary . According to wikipedia more than 6000 Israeli Jews lost their lives in this war about a third were civilian. Israel is one of those countries who wrote its history in blood.It's unfortunate it took the sacrifice of 6 million people to make the world understand the need for a Jewish state. It didn't stop them from abandoning us when we were in need .

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Iraq all over again.

I think it's an "upgraded" version (in terms of the number of casualties) of Iraq because this time it's not based on a lie. Iran is also bigger and it's tougher than what Iraq was 10 years ago.

In my opinion the US is trying to get as many people on its side against Iran. Getting the Chinese and Russians to frown at Iran is the toughest part. The US doesn't want to fight WWIII against China and Russia. Everyone hopes Iran would break under the weight of the sanction. The economic condition on the planet are pretty bad and it's even worst in Iran. Iran won't be able to last forever without some relief from the sanctions .

Well. This is pretty scary. I've avoided this topic because I knew it would make me feel like, well, like I feel right now. Not terribly optimistic about the future of humanity.

Niseg wrote:

I think it's an "upgraded" version (in terms of the number of casualties) of Iraq because this time it's not based on a lie. Iran is also bigger and it's tougher than what Iraq was 10 years ago.

Oh right, because with Iraq no one was convinced it was true.

This time we know it's not a lie because our leaders are telling us so!

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Niseg wrote:

I think it's an "upgraded" version (in terms of the number of casualties) of Iraq because this time it's not based on a lie. Iran is also bigger and it's tougher than what Iraq was 10 years ago.

Oh right, because with Iraq no one was convinced it was true.

This time we know it's not a lie because our leaders are telling us so!

link

A new round of U.S. demands backed up by threats.

The Obama administration and its European allies plan to open new negotiations with Iran by demanding the immediate closing and ultimate dismantling of a recently completed nuclear facility deep under a mountain, according to American and European diplomats.

They are also calling for a halt in the production of uranium fuel that is considered just a few steps from bomb grade, and the shipment of existing stockpiles of that fuel out of the country, the diplomats said.

That negotiating position will be the opening move in what President Obama has called Iran’s “last chance” to resolve its nuclear confrontation with the United Nations and the West diplomatically. The hard-line approach would require the country’s military leadership to give up the Fordo enrichment plant outside the holy city of Qum, and with it a huge investment in the one facility that is most hardened against airstrikes.

The U.S. "negotiating position" is little more than an ultimatum - surrender your entire nuclear program, or continue to be attacked.

DSGamer wrote:
Bear wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

*jots down really good idea for historical "what if" science fiction novel/screenplay*

I'm willing to bet it's already been done :)

The key part is the part where they come from Antarctica. That's the twist that makes that solid gold. I doubt that has been done.

Already been done.

The Temple of Hashem wrote:

The book opens in the midst of the main character dreaming of a great escape from a squad of Palestinian commandos. The main character, Shlomo Tzadok is an archeology professor at the University of Tel Aviv who is contemplating Torah research on a full time basis. The government calls upon him to join a small expedition to an Israeli-partitioned part of Antarctica.

In other words, despite us being signatory to a treaty that says that Iran has the inalienable right to pursue civilian nuclear power -- that is as strong as treaty language gets -- they have to completely dismantle their entire nuclear program and get rid of all their uranium. Or else the bombs start falling.

What country, anywhere, would take that deal? This is designed to fail from the very start.

And note, if you haven't already, look on a map. Look up where Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan are. And ask yourself just why, exactly, Iran might be pursuing nuclear weapons, if in fact they are doing so.

US Sending 2nd Aircraft Carrier To Gulf

The deployment of a second aircraft carrier is "routine and not specific to any threat," Derrick-Frost said. She did not say how long the Navy will keep the increased military presence in region.
The Enterprise is based in Norfolk, Va. It was the Navy's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and is now on its last mission. The Enterprise was commissioned in November 1961. The carrier is scheduled to be deactivated this fall.

Sending a carrier (second ship by the way) that happens to be on it's last mission to the region where you are threatening military action is surely routine and in no way related to any threat.

I really wish they could repo that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing.

Kehama wrote:

I really wish they could repo that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing.

Why? It can take its place now with the most ironic awards ever. Maybe the top spot.

Did Andrea Yates ever win "mom of the year"? We know Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize.

To be fair to Obama, the counter-point from his competition on this was, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." Taken in contrast with that plus the whole Iraq-Afghanistan debacle...

LobsterMobster wrote:

AnimeJ, this is what I see you doing:

1) Make an unfounded accusation against Iran.
2) Demand Iran admit such accusations are true and cease any such activity.
3) Claim failure of 2 as proof of 1.

This is the diplomatic equivalent of asking Iran, "are you still beating your wife?" Do you have any hard evidence beyond, "it's Iran?" I'm not claiming they're nice people or that it's all sunshine and puppydogs over there but if they're such bad people we can probably establish that with known facts.

Except it's not unfounded. Go read an IAEA report published in the last 6 months and get back to me. The short version, however is that Iran is denying inspectors access to a lot of facilities they believe are associated with a nuclear weapons program. As an aside, the major part of any nuclear weapons program is enriched uranium. If Iran's goals were purely peaceful, they don't need 20% enriched uranium, let alone the 80%+ that every major political figure in Iran(Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and Salehi) has stated as a goal.

As far as Iran as a destabilizing force goes? You people need to quit watching Fox and CNN. Go watch Al Jazeera(Qatari, by the by) and see what you learn about Iran there. It's not just Israel stating that Iran is the major destabilizing force in the region, folks. Saudis say it, the Qatari's say it, the Kuwaitis say it, and there's no lack of other Sunni Arabs and Kurds and Turks, either.

Ultimately, I get that it's totally hip and vogue to bash the US for warmongering, but when it comes to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, quite frankly having spent 500 days in direct support of both, I'm going to be the arrogant one and tell you all that I am much more connected to reality than ANY of you. I have talked face to face with Afghanis and have more than enough second hand stories from Iraq to know that despite collassal f*ckups ala Abu Ghraib and the Quran burning to know what people there really think, and it's not all the bullsh*t spin you get from US media.

Malor wrote:

In other words, despite us being signatory to a treaty that says that Iran has the inalienable right to pursue civilian nuclear power -- that is as strong as treaty language gets -- they have to completely dismantle their entire nuclear program and get rid of all their uranium. Or else the bombs start falling.

What country, anywhere, would take that deal? This is designed to fail from the very start.

Civilian is the key phrase here, not unalienable. Again, 20% enriched is far beyond the requirement for a civilian plant. 80% or better is *only* usable for weaponization.

Oh, and 93? This isn't the first time we've had more than a single CSG in the AG/SOH/GOO for an extended period. No, I can't get specific.

Again, 20% enriched is far beyond the requirement for a civilian plant. 80% or better is *only* usable for weaponization.

Well, I think you get improved reactors from purer fuel rods. And 20% is way way way way far away from the 90%+ you need for nuclear weapons.

This isn't the first time we've had more than a single CSG in the AG/SOH/GOO for an extended period. No, I can't get specific.

One of those times being the Iraq War, no?

AnimeJ wrote:

Except it's not unfounded. Go read an IAEA report published in the last 6 months and get back to me.

Okay, lets do that.

50. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

In other words, they cannot prove a negative - which is hardly surprising. Where's the evidence that Iran is doing anything militarily related? There isn't any - if they actually had any, they would have put it in the report. Iran refusing the IAEA further access to Parchin and a handful of other things cannot be the sole basis for starting a war, especially when our own intelligence agencies say there isn't any evidence that Iran is acively pursuing a nuke.

The short version, however is that Iran is denying inspectors access to a lot of facilities they believe are associated with a nuclear weapons program.

No, Iran is denying the inspectors access to one facility, a facility they visited in 2005 and took samples from. And the IAEA does not "believe" the site is associated with a nuclear weapons program, they are looking to eliminate the site as a possibility based on previous testing.

As an aside, the major part of any nuclear weapons program is enriched uranium. If Iran's goals were purely peaceful, they don't need 20% enriched uranium, let alone the 80%+ that every major political figure in Iran(Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and Salehi) has stated as a goal.

Links please? The Iranians have not claimed 80% as a goal that I know of. In fact, they are currently offering to halt 20% enrichment. Since the U.S. isn't negotiating, though, that'll go nowhere even if they do stop.

As far as Iran as a destabilizing force goes? You people need to quit watching Fox and CNN. Go watch Al Jazeera(Qatari, by the by) and see what you learn about Iran there. It's not just Israel stating that Iran is the major destabilizing force in the region, folks. Saudis say it, the Qatari's say it, the Kuwaitis say it, and there's no lack of other Sunni Arabs and Kurds and Turks, either.

Watching Al Jazeera will pretty quickly convince you of one thing - the major destabilizing force in the region is the United States, by a very large gap.