War Buildup Against Iran

lokstah

See, this comes back to the question I posed to Wessie. Comparing the "bloodiness" of the world's competing cultures doesn't interest me either. In discussions on this topic, however, it's routinely the case that an individual like Wessie counter even a thoughtful implication of the Israel factor with a claim of bigotry -- and in the same breath, indicate a Muslim tendency towards violence. "Islam needs fresh blood to survive," he suggests, shortly after labeling Lickerman a bigot.

I'd wager neither is a bigot in the sense I like to use the word, to be clear, but the irony is unfortunate.

I just question the mindset, or the climate, which prompts statements like yours, above, that serve no real informative or rhetorical purpose -- unless, of course, we are convinced that a particular cultural player in this game is nothing but a brutal hun and needs to be exposed as such.

Bikerman2004

I've already noted that I didn't mean to insinuate Islam is responsible for all the violence. However, it is a expanding religion and areas where it is expanding there is bound to be violence between religious zealots.

limerickman

In this country, we call a spade a spade.
From my experience of the USA, one dare not speak about Israel or Jews without being accused of bigotry.
I am delighted to say that the same attitude doesn't pertain in this country.

I don't consider the fact that my view that Israel should have been established in Argentina, instead of Palestine as being bigotted.
People like luft though, try to denigrate people who hold an opposing view as being anti-sematic or being bigots.
It shows the weakness of his argument that he resorts to labelling people.

lokstah

That's true. And there's definitely nothing rash about exploring the obvious reality we currently face: that Islam, globally, constitutes a cultural spectrum containing a lot of turmoil, and a lot of dangerous tendencies.

I didn't mean to single you out, Bikerman. Wessie got me riled up is all.

Bikerman2004

[QUOTE=limerickman]From my experience of the USA, one dare not speak about Israel or Jews without being accused of bigotry.
I am delighted to say that the same attitude doesn't pertain in this country.
I don't having that view makes you a bigot. I can see where some would. But I don't. It is a valid opinion.

Danian

Just a few articles to keep you thinking...


U.S. DEBATES MILITARY STRIKES ON 'NUCLEAR IRAN'
The Bush administration's warnings that it will not "tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran have opened up a lively policy debate in Washington over the merits of military strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear program.


BUSH ADMINISTRATION UNDER MOUNTING PRESSURE TO TAKE ACTION TO DEAL WITH IRAN
THE WASHINGTON POST July 17, 2004
Since May, Congress has been moving -- with little notice -- toward a joint resolution calling for punitive action against Iran if it does not fully reveal details of its nuclear arms program. In language similar to the prewar resolution on Iraq, a recent House resolution [H.R. 398] authorized the use of "all appropriate means" to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry -- terminology often used to approve preemptive military force. Reflecting the growing anxiety on Capitol Hill about Iran, it passed 376 to 3.



REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN AFTER BUSH RE-ELECTION?
Report: Senior official says U.S. to help 'hugely dissatisfied' population
WorldNetDaily, July 19, 2004
Following leaked reports yesterday that Israel is ready to strike against several of Iran's nuclear power facilities if Russia supplies the Ayatollah's with rods for enriching uranium, a senior U.S. official said America will take actions to overturn the regime in Iran if President Bush is elected for a second term.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the London Times Bush would provide assistance to Iran's "hugely dissatisfied" population to help them revolt against the ruling theocracy.

The U.S. would not use military force, as in Iraq, but "if Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran," said the official, who stressed the war on terror would "continue to be relentless."

The Times said the official hinted at a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, explaining there was a window of opportunity for destroying Iran's main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods, which are currently sitting in a Russian port.

Israel has said that if the rods, which are needed to enrich uranium, are shipped, it would strike several of Iran's nuclear facilities.

The official also said Britain, France and Germany should take a tougher line on Iran, voicing disdain with the Europeans Union for its attempts to defuse the Iranian nuclear threat through diplomacy.

The official dismissed suggestions Washington would hesitate to seek regime change in Iran, and stressed the Iranian population is extremely dissatisfied with the mullahs, and with Iran's sluggish economy.

Russia is expected to deliver the enriching rods late next year after a dispute over financial terms is resolved.

Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has obligated itself to random inspections supervised by the IAEA. But the treaty allows Iran to produce nuclear material as long as it can plausibly claim the production is for "peaceful purposes."

Experts warn that Iran can build the infrastructure needed to make nuclear weapons, telling inspectors they need the material for "energy and nuclear medicine research," and then kick out the inspectors, renounce the treaty and quickly assemble a nuclear arsenal, as did North Korea, which is now said to have ten nuclear warheads.

An Israeli defense source said yesterday "Israel will on no account permit Iranian reactors - especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help - to go critical."

The source was also quoted as saying that any Israeli strike on Iran's reactors would probably be carried out by long-range F-15I jets, flying over Turkey, with simultaneous operations by commandos on the ground. Israel has completed test exercises of the strike.

Despite the US and Israeli threats, one of Iran's top ruling clerics vowed yesterday the Islamic republic would continue to pursue its controversial nuclear program. "We are resolute. It is worth achieving it at any cost," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the Guardians Council, said.



IRAN WARNS OF PREEMPTIVE STRIKE TO PREVENT ATTACK ON NUCLEAR SITES
DOHA (AFP) Aug 18, 2004
Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned Wednesday that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Shamkhani, who was asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant in Bushehr, added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.

"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."

A commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the Iranian press earlier Wednesday as saying that Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks the Islamic republic's own burgeoning nuclear facilities.

"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr warned.
Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at its plant being built at Bushehr is seen by arch-enemies Israel and the United States as a cover for nuclear weapons development.

The latest comments mark an escalation in an exchange of threats between Israel and Iran in recent weeks, leading to speculation that there may be a repeat of Israel's strike against Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.

Iran insists that its nuclear intentions are peaceful, while pointing at its enemy's alleged nuclear arsenal, which Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing.

Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera it was not possible "from a practical standpoint" to destroy Iran's nuclear programs because they are the product of national skills "which cannot be eliminated by military means."

He also warned that Iran would consider itself no longer bound by its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the event of an attack.

"The execution of such threats (to attack Iran's nuclear installations) would mean that our cooperation with the IAEA led to feeding information about our nuclear facilities to the attacking side, which (in turn) means that we would no longer be bound by any of our obligations" to the nuclear watchdog, he said.

Diplomats said in Vienna Tuesday that the IAEA would not say in a report next month whether Iran's nuclear activities are of a military nature, nor will it recommend bringing the case before the UN Security Council.

The IAEA board is due to deliver the report on Iran's nuclear activities during a meeting at the organization's headquarters in Vienna from September 13 after the last of a group of IAEA inspectors returned from Iran last week.

The UN's nuclear agency is conducting a major probe into Iran's bid to generate electricity through nuclear power.

The Islamic republic has agreed to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment pending the completion of the IAEA probe, but is working on other parts of the fuel cycle and has recently resumed making centrifuges used for enrichment.

Saucy

Back on topic…


I think its pretty scary.

Iran is a very different situation from Iraq. Iraq was a secular society ruled by a dictator. The US invasion of Iraq be easily explained as an attack on one man, not necessarily the country or the religion.

Iran is different. It has a limited democracy, albeit the only choices are Shiite clerics. Religion, society and government are one in the same in Iran (and this is a basic tenet of Islam to begin with). An attack against Iran can only be viewed as an attack on Islam by the Muslim world. I fear for the symbolic implications this will have in the rest of the Middle East.

Also, Iran is ruled by Shia, and I question what impact this would have on our already tenuous credibility with the Shia in Iraq, with whom we are trying to establish and allegiance of some kind.

I also question what kind of intelligence we have about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Bush himself has acknowledged that US inteligence has been a failure. How can we trust that what we know about Iran’s program is accurate?

We have already destabilized this region further by going into Iraq. The middle east is a powder keg and I feel like the US is constantly lighting matches. This needs to be resolved through diplomacy, if Shrub is even capable of that. I believe that the European leaders are on better terms with Iran so lets hope they are able to solve this diplomatically.




Ha ha. Does anyone know where I can find the 15th Century Bloodshed thread? Its my favorite century of Christian bloodshed!

Jakebrake

One needs not to even go back that far. In this current day and age, who is it that is blowing up airplanes, flying airliners into buildings, strapping bomb vests onto themselves and blowing up women and children, and shooting children in the back? There is on-going conflicts in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, India/Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Kosovo, Nigeria, Sudan, United States, and the Philipines. What do these all have in common?

Danian

Hot off the (Associated) Press...

Iran asserts right to enrich uranium
Khatami: Nuclear program will go forward regardless of possible U.N. sanctions

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:16 a.m. ET Sept. 22, 2004

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called on the international community Wednesday to recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium, again insisting Tehran will pursue a nuclear program that some — including the United States — suspect is aimed at developing weapons.

Khatami warned that Iran would continue its nuclear program even if it meant ending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

“We clearly demand that our right to enrichment be recognized by the international community because it is our legal right and in accordance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” Khatami said after a Cabinet meeting Wednesday. “If it does so, it will open the way for greater cooperation.”

Iranian officials have denounced demands by the IAEA that Iran cease its uranium enrichment program, a process that can produce fuel for both nuclear power stations and nuclear weapons, as “illegal.”

The United States — which once labeled Iran part of an “axis of evil” with North Korea and prewar Iraq — and many nonproliferation experts believe Iran is covertly developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is strictly for generating electricity.

Khatami said Tuesday his nation “won’t go for nuclear weapons at all.”

Iran, as an IAEA member, allows supervision to ensure its nuclear programs are peaceful. But under international pressure last year, Iran agreed to a more aggressive inspection regime under an additional protocol to the nonproliferation treaty.

The IAEA demanded last weekend that Iran freeze uranium enrichment and all related activities, such as building centrifuges and reprocessing uranium, within two months. Failure to do so could prompt the IAEA to pass Iran’s nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

Shrugging off IAEA demands, Iran said Tuesday it started converting at least 40 tons of raw uranium into hexaflouride gas, part of the technology that could be used to make atomic weapons.

A U.S. State Department spokesman said Tuesday there was “no peaceful justification” for Iran’s conversion of raw uranium into nuclear weapons ingredients.

Iran’s secretly developed enrichment program went undetected for 18 years until it was unmasked almost two years ago.

lokstah

Why beat around the bush? Share your point.

limerickman

Jake,
all of the acts that you list as despicable.
But there is blood on the hands of both sides in all of this.
That's what is in common for all of these.

Jakebrake

I'm going to have to disagree with your moral equivalency on this issue. What is also common in all of these is that practitioners of the "religion of peace" are involved. What we are witnessing is the rise of Islamo-fascism around the globe, as the events of the last few weeks bear out. But, I've always tended to see things more black and white, right and wrong, good and evil.

lokstah

There it is -- I knew there was a point buried in your earlier post, somewhere. Hey, ironically, it's not something I disagree with; it's a plain matter of fact. There's clearly a violent brand of fascist-Islam riding a disturbing upward trend worldwide. Pretty obvious. Not sure why you mentioned it, actually. Clarify, perhaps?