Key point here: NO PROOF THAT IRAN IS MAKING A NUCLEAR BOMB"


Now good luck trying to explain this to those fucktards in the whitehouse.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

Would this be a nuke fight? For real?

It depends on who gets into the white house after Bush.

I doubt he has the gonads to press the button with the support he has, the strain on the millitary already, and his beaten presidency.

...

But...

The Neo-Cons have been agressive and beligerent in the past. The Bush family has a property in Central America, and Haliburton has moved it's head office to Dubai. Do the members of the administration have any reason to leave the US in better condition then they found it?

Isn't it in thier best intrest to ensure that none of thier enemies have the infrastructure / power to seek them out for war crimes after they leave office?

By dropping nukes on Iran they assure a chaotic middle east for years to come and possibly the comencement of a holy war against the US. But if all the administration has cut thier ties with the US (a country where only 30 odd percent of people like them), why would they care if the US and Iran were at war, so long as Dubai and Central America are safe havens?

I hate to say it but this seems to be part of a Macheovelian tactical analysis of the US administration. Seeing as they have practiced real politik in the past it's not a completely un-realistic view.

Short answer....

It all depends on how much Bush has left in the US and the strenth of his ties to Saudi.

If the Bush admin really is going to do it, wouldn't they need Congressional approval? He definitely wouldn't get it. That executive order is pretty powerful though. Just my speculation. I really don't get the logic of these neocons in Washington...

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

Iran warns U.S. of "quagmire"

By Fredrik Dahl Wed Oct 31, 7:58 AM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran warned the United States on Wednesday it would find itself in a "quagmire deeper than Iraq" if it attacked the Islamic state, and Russia stepped up efforts for a diplomatic solution to Tehran's nuclear row with the West.

The warning by the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, a target of new U.S. sanctions announced last week, added to angry rhetoric between the two old foes that has prompted speculation of possible U.S. military action.

U.S. President George W. Bush this month suggested a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three but the White House said on Tuesday it remained determined to resolve the stand-off peacefully.

"If the enemies show inexperience and want to invade Islamic Iran, they will receive a strong slap from Iran," Jafari said in comments carried by the semi-official Fars News Agency.

"The enemy knows that if it attacks Iran it, will be trapped in a quagmire deeper than Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will have to withdraw with defeat," he told a parade in north-central Iran, without mentioning the United States by name.

Major powers are expected to meet in London this week to discuss a possible third round of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt work which it says is aimed at generating electricity but could also be used for making bombs.

Iran, hoping to ward off any further sanctions on its oil-dependent economy, agreed with the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in August to clear up suspicions about its past secret nuclear activities.

The United States, saying the deal failed to address the core U.N. demand that Tehran suspend work Washington suspects is aimed at making bombs, is pushing for tougher U.N. sanctions.

Tensions over Iran's nuclear program are one of the factors that have pushed oil prices to record highs of over $90 a barrel in recent days.

"TRUST"

Russia, a veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council, says dialogue rather than punishment or talk of military action offers the best way to ease tension. It says the IAEA process should be given time to run its course.

Speaking after talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday evening, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, according to a transcript from his ministry:

"We encouraged the Iranian leadership to undertake further -- and preferably more active -- work with the IAEA to clear up those questions which have been raised by the agency with regard to the Iranian nuclear program's past."

Lavrov, visiting two weeks after a trip to Tehran by President Vladimir Putin, said he "underlined the importance of closing these questions as soon as possible, in order to restore trust in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's activities."

Ahmadinejad said Iran was "determined" to continue its cooperation with the agency, the ISNA news agency said.

Lavrov's visit coincided with vital talks in Tehran between officials from Iran and the Vienna-based IAEA on implementing the August agreement, entering their third day on Wednesday.

Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei will report to the agency's 35-nation board of governors in mid-November. If Iran has not answered sensitive questions by then, Western powers say they will move to have harsh U.N. sanctions adopted.

In Washington, U.S. officials said they expected the five permanent U.N. Security Council members -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- as well as Germany to meet later this week in London to discuss new sanctions.

Britain and France back a tough line on Iran. China, like Russia, has opposed an early move to tighten economic sanctions, saying Iran should be given longer to cooperate with the IAEA.

The U.N. Security Council has already imposed two sets of limited sanctions on Iran for its refusal to halt enrichment, a process to make fuel for nuclear power plants that can also, if refined further, provide material for bombs.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Key point here: NO PROOF THAT IRAN IS MAKING A NUCLEAR BOMB" Now good luck trying to explain this to those fucktards in the whitehouse.

Thing is if you provoke you have to accept the consequences. If you hint at nuclear weapons but never actually say you have them which are your enemies going to assume? If Iran continues to be so provocative then wether they actually have the nuclear weapons or not becomes irrelevant and is only a question the US will have to answer for long after the invasion has taken place. Military action is inevitable wether now or later aslong as they continue to act like the child of world politics.

___________________
Dont expect profoundness so much as relentless and pathological destruction.

I'd wager that it would be near impossible logistically for the Iranians to build a nuke, especially without being detected. It's bullshit, plain and simple.

First off, we don't even know if what we're told the method is, is actually the method at all.

Secondly, you would most likely need entire towns built around the trial and error construction of these highly theoretical magnetic purification fields.

It's simply not going to happen. It's just bullshit to rally the sheep into feeding on the war.

Now on the other hand, the US, Russia, or China might sell them one... and each has reasons they might want to do so, but hopefully would be intelligent enough not to do so. There is no evidence suggesting that they are.

quote:

Originally posted by The Arbiter Thing is if you provoke you have to accept the consequences. If you hint at nuclear weapons but never actually say you have them which are your enemies going to assume? If Iran continues to be so provocative then wether they actually have the nuclear weapons or not becomes irrelevant and is only a question the US will have to answer for long after the invasion has taken place. Military action is inevitable wether now or later aslong as they continue to act like the child of world politics.

Information obtained from and translated by whom?

Also need to look at who is saying what, and understand their culture and heirarchy of actual power.

Everyone in that region still tends to be a little backwards with the religion overzealousness, and it prevades their sense of communication as well... you think Israeli presidents have never threatened to nuke their neighbors off the face of the earth? heh.

Not defending any of these people, but I sure as hell am not going to give any allowance towards another "WMD" war. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me.

If you can't properly communicate in politics your fucked.

___________________
Dont expect profoundness so much as relentless and pathological destruction.

quote:

Originally posted by The Arbiter If you can't properly communicate in politics your fucked.

You didn't answer his question.

quote:

Originally posted by The Arbiter Thing is if you provoke you have to accept the consequences. If you hint at nuclear weapons but never actually say you have them which are your enemies going to assume? If Iran continues to be so provocative then whether they actually have the nuclear weapons or not becomes irrelevant and is only a question the US will have to answer for long after the invasion has taken place. Military action is inevitable whether now or later as long as they continue to act like the child of world politics.

First, I don't recall Iran ever hinting or provoking other countries that they have nuclear weapons. Just because a country does have nuclear enrichment doesn't mean that other countries have to jump the gun and assume nuclear weapons. A lot of backlash towards Iran or any country that is nuclear powered is coming from ignorance rather knowledge.

Second, if Iran is acting so childish in politics, then so are the U.S. Just because they believe someone is "provoking" them, doesn't necessarily mean that their only answer is always an invasion running in and causing a war. That's become old and clichéd, and probably a more immaturish attitude on their behalf. Its like me coming up to and poking you on the arm, and you turn around and shoot me with a gun because you either assumed i was threatening you with something or trying to provoke you.

___________________

This makes me even more certain of a possible US-led campaign against Iran:

http://www.protectionline.org/Eynul...-Outspoken.html

quote:

(New York, October 30, 2007) - The eight-and-a-half-year prison sentence handed down to Eynulla Fatullayev, editor of Azerbaijan’s two largest independent newspapers, for terrorism and other charges, reflects the growing government hostility toward freedom of expression and the press, Human Rights Watch said today. On October 30, Azerbaijan’s Grave Crimes Court convicted Fatullayev, the outspoken editor-in-chief of the independent Realni Azerbaijan and Gundelik Azerbaijan newspapers, for terrorism, inciting ethnic hatred, and tax evasion. The conviction is a culmination of a concerted effort by the Azerbaijani authorities to silence Fatuallyev and his newspapers. "Fatullayev’s prosecution was politically motivated, and his conviction should be quashed immediately and he should be released," said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The steady rise of politically motivated criminal charges, as well as violent attacks against journalists, is obviously aimed at silencing critical voices in Azerbaijan." The terrorism and inciting ethnic hatred charges derive from an article Fatullayev wrote in Realni Azerbaijan, in which he argued that the government’s support of the United States’ position on Iran makes Azerbaijan vulnerable to attack from Iran, and he speculated on likely targets of such an attack. “Fatullayev’s conviction on terrorism charges is absurd,” said Cartner. "Similar articles routinely appear in US and British papers, saying that the pursuit of the war in Iraq is increasing the likelihood of terrorist attacks on Britain or the United States. That is legitimate political commentary, not the fomenting of terrorism." Fatullayev’s conviction comes six months after the Yasamal District Court in Baku sentenced him to two-and-a-half years for having committed “criminal libel” and “insult” with an internet posting, which he denied writing. Shortly after this conviction Realni Azerbaijan and Gundelik Azerbaijan, the two largest circulation print outlets in the country, were effectively shut down after Emergency Ministry and National Security Ministry personnel evicted the staff from the papers’ premises, confiscated their computer hard drives, and sealed the office shut. Such actions flout Azerbaijan’s obligations as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and its commitments to respect fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Fatullayev is the eighth journalist in Azerbaijan imprisoned for defamation and other criminal charges. Human Rights Watch has also documented numerous cases of violence and threats of violence against opposition and independent journalists in the country. BACKGROUND: Eynulla Fatullayev is known for his frequent criticism of Azeri officials and for exposing instances of government corruption. Pressure on Fatullayev to stop his journalism had been building for over a year. Fatullayev was forced to suspend publication of his newspapers on October 1, after his father was kidnapped. The kidnappers threatened to kill both Fatullayev and his father if he continued publishing the newspapers. The editor had to stop publication of the paper in exchange for his father’s release. Fatullayev renewed publishing only two months later, but acknowledged that he did so at his own peril, since the kidnappers remained at large. In March 2007, after publishing an article accusing the Azeri authorities of obstructing the investigation into the murder of Monitor editor Elmar Huseinov, Fatullayev reported death threats against him and his family. The Azeri authorities refused to investigate these claims or offer to protect Fatullayev. In February, soon after a statement attributed to Fatullayev about the Khojali massacre began to circulate on the internet, protestors organized several rallies in front of the Realni Azerbaijan office and threw eggs and stones at the office windows. Police did nothing to stop the protestors. In recent months, high-ranking state officials have initiated criminal defamation charges against Fatullayev. In September 2006, Fatullayev was handed a two-year suspended sentence and forced to pay damages in a criminal libel case brought by Interior Minister Ramil Usubov. Usubov has brought similar charges against numerous other independent journalists and newspapers. The conviction of Fatullayev comes amid the Azerbaijani government’s growing hostility toward independent and opposition media, which raises serious concerns about the future of independent media and the security of journalists in the country. Violence and the threat of violence against journalists have become frequent in Azerbaijan, and often such crimes are committed with impunity. A dramatic increase in defamation charges brought against journalists by state officials has further contributed to the deteriorating environment for freedom of expression.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I'd wager that it would be near impossible logistically for the Iranians to build a nuke, especially without being detected. It's bullshit, plain and simple.

Prescient. Today's smoking gun:

quote:

The confrontation with Iran Experts: No evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons program Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers last updated: November 04, 2007 10:56:13 AM WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program. Even his own administration appears divided about the immediacy of the threat. While Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney speak of an Iranian weapons program as a fact, Bush's point man on Iran, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, has attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric. "Iran is seeking a nuclear capability ... that some people fear might lead to a nuclear-weapons capability," Burns said in an interview Oct. 25 on PBS. "I don't think that anyone right today thinks they're working on a bomb," said another U.S. official, who requested anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity. Outside experts say the operative words are "right today." They say Iran may have been actively seeking to create a nuclear-weapons capacity in the past and still could break out of its current uranium-enrichment program and start a weapons program. They too lack definitive proof, but cite a great deal of circumstantial evidence. Bush's rhetoric seems hyperbolic compared with the measured statements by his senior aides and outside experts. "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," he said Oct. 17 at a news conference. "Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney warned on Oct 23. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." Bush and Cheney's allegations are under especially close scrutiny because their similar allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program proved to be wrong. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to be skeptical of Iran's claims that its nuclear program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes, including the country's vast petroleum reserves, its dealings with a Pakistani dealer in black-market nuclear technology and the fact that it concealed its uranium-enrichment program from a U.N. watchdog agency for 18 years. "Many aspects of Iran's past nuclear program and behavior make more sense if this program was set up for military rather than civilian purposes," Pierre Goldschmidt, a former U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency deputy director general, said in a speech Oct. 30 at Harvard University. If conclusive proof exists, however, Bush hasn't revealed it. Nor have four years of IAEA inspections. "I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear-weapons program going on right now," IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei asserted in an interview Oct. 31 with CNN. "There is no smoking-gun proof of work on a nuclear weapon, but there is enough evidence that points in that direction," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation controls. New light may be shed when the IAEA reports this month on whether Iran is fulfilling an August accord to answer all outstanding questions about the nuclear-enrichment program it long concealed from the U.N. watchdog agency. Its report is expected to focus on Iran's work with devices that spin uranium hexafluoride gas to produce low-enriched uranium for power plants or highly enriched uranium for weapons, depending on the duration of the process. Iran asserts that it's working only with the P1, an older centrifuge that it admitted buying in 1987 from an international black-market network headed by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. But IAEA inspectors determined that Iran failed to reveal that it had obtained blueprints for the P2, a centrifuge twice as efficient as the P1, from the Khan network in 1995. Iranian officials say they did nothing with the blueprints until 2002, when they were given to a private firm that produced and tested seven modified P2 parts, then abandoned the effort. IAEA inspectors, however, discovered that Iran sought to buy thousands of specialized magnets for P2s from European suppliers, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last year that research on the centrifuges continued. The IAEA has been stymied in trying to discover the project's scope, fueling suspicions that the Iranian military may be secretly running a P2 development program parallel to the civilian-run P1 program at Natanz. Other issues driving concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons: PROJECT 111 The CIA turned over to the IAEA last year thousands of pages of computer simulations and documents — purportedly from a defector's laptop — that indicated that Iranian experts studied mounting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile. The laptop also contained drawings and notes on sophisticated detonators and conventional high explosives arrayed in a ring — the shape used to trigger nuclear weapons — and implicated a firm linked to Iran's military in uranium-enrichment studies. The documents included drawings of a 1,200-foot-deep underground shaft apparently designed to confine a nuclear test explosion. Iran denounced the materials as "politically motivated and baseless," but promised to cooperate with an IAEA investigation into so-called Project 111 once other questions are settled. U.S., French, German and British intelligence officials think the materials are genuine. "I wouldn't go to war over this, but it's reason for suspicion," Fitzpatrick said. "It hasn't been explained." Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California who emigrated from Iran in 1978 and has analyzed Iran's nuclear program closely, dismissed the materials as "totally not believable." Noting how carefully Iranian intelligence agencies monitor the program and the borders, he said, "If the laptop did exist, I find it hard to believe that its absence wasn't noticed for so long that somebody could take it out of Iran." THE 15-PAGE DOCUMENT ElBaradei revealed in November 2005 that Iran had a document supplied by the Khan network on casting and milling uranium metal into hemispheres. Uranium hemispheres have no application in power plants, but form the explosive cores of nuclear weapons. Iran denied asking for the document or doing anything with it. It barred the IAEA from making copies but agreed to have it placed under seal. IAEA investigators have been interviewing Khan network members to verify Iran's version of how it got the document. They also have been looking into whether Iran received a Chinese warhead design from the Khan network. Libya, which bought the same materials Iran did, had the design. POLONIUM-210 Iran has failed since 2003 to satisfy IAEA inquiries about experiments it conducted from 1989 to 1993 that produced Polonium-210. Polonium-210 is a highly radioactive substance that has limited civilian applications but is used in warheads to initiate the fission chain reaction that results in a nuclear blast. URANIUM MINE IAEA inspectors want to know why and how the same military-linked company that's been implicated in the laptop materials was able to develop a uranium mine and a milling facility in a year when Iran has said the firm has limited experience in such work. NUCLEAR POWER VS. OIL AND GAS Many U.S. and European officials dispute Iran's claim that it needs to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants. They point out that the only Iranian nuclear power plant under construction is being built by Russia, which has an agreement to supply it with low-enriched uranium fuel for 10 years. Moreover, they contend that Iran doesn't have enough uranium to provide fuel for the lifetimes of the seven to 10 civilian reactors it says it needs to meet the demands of its growing population. It would be far cheaper for Iran to expand domestic consumption of natural gas, of which it has the world's second-largest reserves, and oil, of which it has the world's third-largest reserves, according to a study by the Los Alamos National Laboratory. But Sahimi argued that given the skyrocketing price of oil and natural gas, it makes more sense for Iran to export as much petroleum and natural gas as possible and fill its power needs with nuclear-generated electricity. "The price of uranium since 2001 has increased by 800 percent. Iran's presently known resources can supply enriched uranium for seven reactors for 15 years," he said. "It would be foolish not to go after a domestic uranium facility ... given that, the price of enriched uranium, and the political obstacles and hindrance (Iran faces) if it decides to rely on outside suppliers."

Be interesting to see how Ms. Perino spins this one tomorrow morning.

___________________

Last edited by Lebezniatnikov on Nov-08-2007 at 02:45