Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Post reports this morning that a team of US and Russian technical experts want to put the kibosh on US plans for putting a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic:
A planned U.S. missile shield to protect Europe from a possible Iranian attack would be ineffective against the kinds of missiles Iran is likely to deploy, according to a joint analysis by top U.S. and Russian scientists.The U.S.-Russian team also judged that it would be more than five years before Iran is capable of building both a nuclear warhead and a missile capable of carrying it over long distances. And if Iran attempted such an attack, the experts say, it would ensure its own destruction.
They concluded that the missile system isn't important, in part, because, well, the threat isn't there:
"The missile threat from Iran to Europe is thus not imminent," the 12-member technical panel concludes in a report produced by the EastWest Institute, an independent think tank based in Moscow, New York and Belgium.
Their conclusions were reviewed by William Perry, President Clinton's secretary of defense, who is a titan of the military-industrial complex and no dove. They'll be presented to Jim Jones, President Obama's national security adviser.
It's clear that the Obama administration is quietly building the case that this provocative plan, pushed hard by George W. Bush and Co., isn't needed and won't work.
There are two angles to this story: first, it's an important step in rebuilding relations with Russia -- or pushing the famous "reset" button -- which is a big step in itself. Second, it's part of a judicious and careful Obama opening to Iran, downgrading the alleged threat from that country, and boosting chances that the opening might succeed.
On Iran, yesterday, Obama seemed to stand firm against Prime Minister Netanyahu's efforts to ring every alarm bell he could find. Despite Netanyahu, and despite coordinated calls from Netanyahu's US allies, Obama refused to set a deadline for talks with Iran, making it clear that such talks are open-ended. He did suggest that perhaps, by year's end, he might be able to make a judgment about how things are going, but that's far from the kind of short-fuse deadline that Netanyahu and the neocons want. Here's the full text of Obama's comments in that regard:
You know, I don't want to set an artificial deadline. I think it's important to recognize that Iran is in the midst of its own elections. As I think all of you, since you're all political reporters, are familiar with, election time is not always the best time to get business done.Their elections will be completed in June, and we are hopeful that, at that point, there is going to be a serious process of engagement, first through the P5-plus-one process that's already in place, potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran.
I want to reemphasize what I said earlier, that I believe it is not only in the interest of the international community that Iran not develop nuclear weapons, I firmly believe it is in Iran's interest not to develop nuclear weapons, because it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and be profoundly destabilizing in all sorts of ways. Iran can achieve its interests of security and international respect and prosperity for its people through other means, and I am prepared to make what I believe will be a persuasive argument, that there should be a different course to be taken.
The one thing we're also aware of is the fact that the history, of least, of negotiation with Iran is that there is a lot of talk but not always action and follow-through. And that's why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we're not going to have talks forever. We're not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear -- and deploying a nuclear weapon. That's something, obviously, Israel is concerned about, but it's also an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.
My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there's a good faith effort to resolve differences. That doesn't mean every issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we'll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this approach.
Perfect, in my opinion.
Meanwhile, the panel of experts examining the Iranian missile threat concluded that any danger to Europe, and to Israel, too, presumably, is years away:
They conclude that it would take Iran at least another six to eight years to produce a missile with enough range to reach Southern Europe and that only illicit foreign assistance or a concerted and highly visible, decade-long effort might produce the breakthroughs needed for a nuclear-tipped missile to threaten the United States.
Advice to Bibi: don't have a cow.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Have the neo-cons figured out that contradiction yet?
The one by which they BOTH claim that Bush was "standing tough" on Iran (as well as "protecting us for 7 years")....AND the one where Bush not only didn't attack Iran despite its "imminent threat", but was actually trying to TALK to Iran in his final months in office via Condi?
Something doesn't add up...either their paranoia over Iran or their adoration of Dubya?
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 08:46am
Hopefully this is a backdoor face-saver. And one we've traded for some hefty drawdown on the red side of the line.
Posted by winyahn at 05/19/2009 @ 08:48am
ok...give it a shot, sure, but allow me to return to the underlying hypocrisy of this entire issue...
WE have lots of nukes. ISRAEL apparantly has enough nukes to do some SERIOUS damage to any who might seriously threaten her.
IRAN thinks of herself as an important nation with a destiny. national pride. i beleive they feel that the only way to get the respect they think they deserve, to be taken seriously, is to nukify themselves.
and you know...i seriously doubt we would have invaded IRAQ if we knew old saddam really had some real live nukes up his sleeve...as opposed to phantom nukes...phantom nukes don't work so well if your bluff gets called by those who know better...
but anyway...i have a hard time seeing iran give up their nuclear program. first, a desire to set up nuclear power plants is perfectly legitimate. whatever one's feelings about such power generation, it is every country's right to modernize its infrastructure. if iran builds nuclear power plants, they will be able to build nukes whether they choose to or not.
now, let us entertain the possibility that many if not most iranians believe their own propaganda. not so hard to swallow. we believe OUR own propaganda; we even believed the ridiculous anarcho-libertarian/gawd bless the USA/neocon "walmartize the world" propaganda that got us in this stupid mess until around 2006.
so, in a dangerous world, with a spartan-like nuclear armed israel which from time to time carries out military strikes against other countries and constantly threatens such...
the iranian desire to have some nukes makes a lot of sense.
not trying to demonize israel or the US, nor ignoring the ugly side of iran, but i have a hard time seeing how we will be able to convice them to not go nuke...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 09:06am
Something doesn't add up...either their paranoia over Iran or their adoration of Dubya?
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 08:46am | ignore this person | warn this person
But certainly not the first time.....
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." bush quotes: george w. bush, washington dc sept 13 2001
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." bush quotes: george w. bush, washington dc march 13 2002
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 09:37am
the iranian desire to have some nukes makes a lot of sense.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 09:06am | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah....because maybe Iranians are human too.....with security needs and desire for self-determination as a nation without being bullied.
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 09:40am
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 09:37am
True, taking up two contradictory positions nothing new on the Right. Even more so since Obama's election.
I just find it humorous that the same guys telling us "Iran is poised to go nuk-u-ler and wipe out Israel"...are usually the same ones telling us how well Dubya "protected us for 7 years"...
but can't explain why he left Iran to "go nuk-u-ler" in his Final Days, or more importantly why he was trying to TALK to the Iranians (which those same folks mocked during the election)?
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 09:45am
yeah....because maybe Iranians are human too.....with security needs and desire for self-determination as a nation without being bullied.
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 09:40am | ignore this person | warn this person
The lesson from the bush administration years was...
got nukes? you are safe (n. korea). don't got nukes? hell, even "comply with UN sanctions and dismantle your WMD" and...
you might get invaded by the US regardless of whether you attacked them or not!!!!
if i were the iranians i would work to to improve relations with the west...AND build a few nukes.
nothing else really makes sense to them.
and well...if israel wishes to start another war in order to stop a future war, or prevent iran from using a stockpile of nukes to prevent anyone from invading it (like israel has done for a few decades - not that i blame them mind you...)
let israel deal with the consequences. they got nukes, after all...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 09:50am
but can't explain why he left Iran to "go nuk-u-ler" in his Final Days, or more importantly why he was trying to TALK to the Iranians (which those same folks mocked during the election)?
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 09:45am | ignore this person | warn this person
Something tells me that "hidden forces" from inside and outside the US were moving in a different direction on Iran, and don't forget, Bush had to "bring on" on the financial crisis in order to start the bailout gravy train moving - perhaps his highest priority before leaving office.
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 09:58am
let israel deal with the consequences. they got nukes, after all...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 09:50am | ignore this person | warn this person
100% concurrence ib!
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 10:00am
100% concurrence ib!
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 10:00am | ignore this person | warn this person
i'm preachin' ta the choir.
CAN I GET AN AMEN?!
;)
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 10:09am
CAN I GET AN AMEN?!
;)
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 10:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
Amen from the front pew!
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 10:13am
I'll keep my fingers crossed that, over the months and years to come the Obama administration successfully engages with Iran, and successfully confronts Israel on certain important issues, in a way that reduces the likelihood of yet more war and violence in the region.
Part of the approach needs to include addressing the Israeli nuclear arsenal. Israel is by any definition a rogue nation, having flouted international law, rulings, and opinion throughout most of its 60 year existence, and for such a nation to successfully maintain an advanced nuclear arsenal as an open secret, off the table for discussion, is a setback to the interest of non-proliferation in general in addition to the interest of peace in the greater Middle East region. You can't tell Iran they have no right to produce nuclear weapons when Israel is given carte blanche to maintain an arsenal. That kind of double standard is a non-starter.
If President Obama does not force the Israelis to accept a fair and just peace plan with the Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians, there will also be no hope for improvement in the region. Israel's closest neighbors have legitimate grievances - in the case of the Palestinians and the Lebanese, profound legitimate grievances - and Israel is going to have to be made to confront this reality and retreat from their colonialism.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/19/2009 @ 10:34am
posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 05/19/2009 @ 08:21am
The panel and its results, if used properly, will be an excellent political bludgeon for use here in the US to argue against those who want this idiotic "missile defense system" in place. This defense project is, which is really more a political football and jobs program for military-industrial types, has got to go. I sincerely hope the panel results are sufficient hammer to drive a stake through the heart of Star Wars once and for all.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/19/2009 @ 10:43am
Have the neo-cons figured out that contradiction yet?
The one by which they BOTH claim that Bush was "standing tough" on Iran (as well as "protecting us for 7 years")....AND the one where Bush not only didn't attack Iran despite its "imminent threat", but was actually trying to TALK to Iran in his final months in office via Condi?
Something doesn't add up...either their paranoia over Iran or their adoration of Dubya?
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 08:46am
Has Mask figured out the error in his conclusions yet?
Bush did stand tough against Iran. In fact, the liberals complained constantly about it. And people like Sy Hersh were repeatedly stating that Bush was invading Iran and even had covert operations going inside Iran.
http://tinyurl.com/2j45l5
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 10:55am
Intrestingly the Obamanation that makes desolation administration and Demoncrat congress is following the "ignore all threats" and never focus on current reality that the Clinton administration was famous for! The only real question is how they will try to shift the blame for their foriegn policy total incompetence along their national security and military unpreparedness to meet real future threats!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/19/2009 @ 11:29am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 10:55am
No, Bush TALKED tough on Iran in his speeches.
YOU guys keep claiming that Iran is "only weeks away" from having dozens of nukes raining down on Haifa and Tel Aviv.
But in his Final Days, Dubya was trying to TALK, open a dialogue with Iran, not doing what YOU guys say needs to be "on the table"...i.e. bombing the crap out of them.
Why didn't he? Politically, he couldn't have lost any more ground on his approvals. By your (Larry's) own standard of Constitutionality, he had the POWER to attack Iran.
So, again, why didn't he? Only two possibilities-
1. Iran isn't that much of an imminent threat and Dubya knew it and was trying...GASP!...diplomacy.
2. He was so stupid that he didn't realize how much of an imminent threat they were as YOU seem to know.
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
3) What to do after "preemptive" nuclear strike? Ground troops and military resources bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranian retaliation unstoppable except for massive air and sea attacks, and of course, total nuclear anniliation. Bombing and nuclear strikes beyond strategic targets (suspected nuclear facilities) didn't look like a real good option....lol.....
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 12:17pm
The only real question is how they will try to shift the blame for their foriegn policy total incompetence along their national security and military unpreparedness to meet real future threats!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/19/2009 @ 11:29am | ignore this person | warn this person
Such as????????????????
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 12:19pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 10:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
Funny through all the Bush pomp and circumstance, nothing was accomplished vis a vis Iran during his administration. Obama, if he does nothing at all, will have achieved more than Bush, simply by not aggravating the situation. His present policy appears to be a good one! Sometimes, to do nothing at all beyond leaving the door open is the best choice.
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 12:24pm
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 12:17pm
But then that precludes the idea that a military strike can work at all...which again contradicts the neo-con "Iran an imminent threat" guys because (though they try to couch it in "everything on the table) THAT is what they want ...massive bombing of Iran.
So if that not only can't work, but would be disasterous...and Dubya knew that and didn't do it....
again, the neo-cons are wrong.
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 12:43pm
even had covert operations going inside Iran.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 10:55am
yep. funding terrorists who kill innocent people.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2009 @ 12:57pm
YOU guys keep claiming that Iran is "only weeks away" from having dozens of nukes raining down on Haifa and Tel Aviv.
But in his Final Days, Dubya was trying to TALK, open a dialogue with Iran, not doing what YOU guys say needs to be "on the table"...i.e. bombing the crap out of them.
Why didn't he? Politically, he couldn't have lost any more ground on his approvals. By your (Larry's) own standard of Constitutionality, he had the POWER to attack Iran.
So, again, why didn't he? Only two possibilities-
1. Iran isn't that much of an imminent threat and Dubya knew it and was trying...GASP!...diplomacy.
2. He was so stupid that he didn't realize how much of an imminent threat they were as YOU seem to know.
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 11:37am
No one has labelled Iran an "imminent" threat for nuclear weapons.
No one has stated that they are "weeks away".
That is just the usual misrepresentation you are consistent in utilizing.
Whether it is 1-2 years or 5 years (5 being the consensus), Iran will be a threat to Israel, Europe and thus also the US.
This is Obama's position also, and I don't see you criticizing him for labelling Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons a serious threat to the US.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 1:46pm
Mask, I think I can answer your question. Dubya's about-face on Iran can be easily seen as consistent with his fruitcake evangelical brainwashing. Their agenda is twofold: Persecute and murder those heathen, Godless A-rabs and 2.) Do everything possible to usher in "the rapture" whereby Jesus will save their sorry souls while seeing that everyone else burns in a radioactive conflagration. In other words, the only thing more important to Bush than killing Arabs is ushering in Armageddon. Iran's alleged desire for nukes (and who can blame them) fed Bush's megalomaniacal fantasies "just peachy" and trumped anything else.
Posted by DejaVu at 05/19/2009 @ 1:51pm
Whether it is 1-2 years or 5 years (5 being the consensus), Iran will be a threat to Israel, Europe and thus also the US.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 1:46pm
Okay, Larry...say "2 years"...
Dubya didn't care what happened to Israel, Europe, or the US in two years?!??!??!?
Or do you agree with him AND Obama, to turn your "criticism" question around, that DIPLOMACY, not bombing them, is the way to go???
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 2:02pm
Okay, Larry...say "2 years"...
Dubya didn't care what happened to Israel, Europe, or the US in two years?!??!??!?
Or do you agree with him AND Obama, to turn your "criticism" question around, that DIPLOMACY, not bombing them, is the way to go???
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 2:02pm
This is a repeat question that I've answered before on related issues.
I'm not against diplomacy. But diplomacy requires more than one side that is willing to entertain compromise.
Iran has told the world that it is not willing to compromise. So on what basis do you continue to attempt diplomacy?
And that doesn't mean that we must immediately launch military action. However, this is on a ticking clock and time is working against the US and the rest of the world up to this point.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 2:40pm
Mask,
you didn't answer the question. Are you critical of Obama for stating that Iran is a critical threat to the US if and when they develop a nuclear weapon? A weapon you seem to disbelieve they are pursuing.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 2:41pm
"Iran has told the world that it is not willing to compromise. So on what basis do you continue to attempt diplomacy?"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 2:40pm
Fine. So again, Bush was wrong to attempt it given they will never compromise. Yet, don't you also believe he "protected us for 7 years"?!?!??
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 2:41pm
No, I agree with him. I also agree with him that we can prevent that through diplomacy. Oddly, I also agree with Dubya who pursued a diplomatic move.
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 3:02pm
Official confirmation is always helpful!
Posted by pjcasey at 05/19/2009 @ 3:13pm
Five years until operational status? Ok, but that come up faster than you think.
Missile defense will not work? I guess if you listen to people who are against missile defense in general you get the answer you are after. The hard truth is that it will work but you have to continue work on it so everthing will be ready to go (installed) when that five year period concludes.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/19/2009 @ 3:15pm
The only real question is how they will try to shift the blame for their foriegn policy total incompetence along their national security and military unpreparedness to meet real future threats!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/19/2009 @ 11:29am | ignore this person | warn this person
"foriegn policy total incompetence"
talking about obama...but still 100% behind the bush for the iraq fiasco...
irony...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 3:16pm
I guess if you listen to people who are against missile defense in general you get the answer you are after.---Posted by pyeatte at 05/19/2009 @ 3:15pm
But I guess if you listen to people who are FOR missile defense in general you get "the truth", right?
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 3:22pm
I don't really have anything to add; I just want to say hi to everybody.
Posted by gren at 05/19/2009 @ 3:29pm
So if that not only can't work, but would be disasterous...and Dubya knew that and didn't do it....
again, the neo-cons are wrong.
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes - all options on the table militarily did mean massive bombing of Iran - the only military option available to Bush. Iran has stated that bombing of nuclear facilities would be countered with military action of their own. Apparently Bush took that seriously....thank goodness.
Makes you wonder about the degree of estrangement of Bush from all his Neocon buddies during the final days of his presidency. We've heard rumors that Bush and Cheney aren't even on speaking terms anymore. Perhaps a Bush enlightment? Perhaps the influence of realism....say a Robert Gates instead of Rummy, and maybe a more open ear to Papa Bush and his former advisors?
How close were "we" to doing it?
It looks like we may be stepping back from the brink a step further. Tis a good day - but for today.
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 4:14pm
Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but the cover story of the latest issue of The American Conservative is about how it will be possible to live with a nuclear Iran, just like we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/19/2009 @ 4:14pm
Posted by gren at 05/19/2009 @ 3:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well hidey ho!
you don't really have to have anything to say. if yer a rightwinger just cut and paste talking points.
but beware cause you will be mocked and wet blanketted if you do.
or you can join in the choir of moderates to lefties and say safe stuff. that's always safe.
or you can just pop in from time to time and say "hi", which is perfectly ok.
have a nice day...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/19/2009 @ 4:16pm
Iran has told the world that it is not willing to compromise. So on what basis do you continue to attempt diplomacy?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Who isn't willing to compromise?
Here is the deal Liv -- Israel gives up nuclear weapons and Iran will do so as well. Put that on the table.
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 4:22pm
Posted by cka2nd at 05/19/2009 @ 4:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ah....the conservatives finally positing the notion of nuclear deterrance as more likely than hurry up and build it and launch against Israel as soon as it is ready. Amazing. Finally treating the Iranians as rational human beings - maybe more rational than we are even.
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 4:31pm
The development of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan did not result in the concerns and issues resulting from the threat of Iranian development of a nuclear arsenal because neither Pakistan nor India were funding and arming militant movements in other countries. The United states and Europe rightly are concerned with Iran as a destabilizing and anti-Western regional force. Accepting Iranian nuclear capability in return for Iran abandoning Hezballah, Hamas and militant Iraqi factions strikes me as a reasonable outcome. But unfortunately reason has little to do with geopolitical outcomes.
Posted by gren at 05/19/2009 @ 5:08pm
Here is the deal Liv -- Israel gives up nuclear weapons and Iran will do so as well. Put that on the table.
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 4:22pm
Iran's intention remains the same; to see the destruction of Israel as a nation.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 5:48pm
"Whether it is 1-2 years or 5 years (5 being the consensus), Iran will be a threat to Israel, Europe and thus also the US."
Did you not read the article? In 5 years they will have a nuke. But they won't have the means to deliver it to Europe or the US. Since they are developing the technologies themselves I imagine they will have some thing that will be crude, and big. So, no it will be another 8 to 12 years before they are a threat to the US or Europe.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2009 @ 6:10pm
Did you not read the article? In 5 years they will have a nuke. But they won't have the means to deliver it to Europe or the US. Since they are developing the technologies themselves I imagine they will have some thing that will be crude, and big. So, no it will be another 8 to 12 years before they are a threat to the US or Europe.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2009 @ 6:10pm
Of course they will have the delivery means. There is mixed intelligence taht reports that they already have the means of hitting some parts of Southern Europe.
<These assessments do not mean, however, that there is universal agreement within the U.S. intelligence community on the issue of an Iranian ICBM. According to these unclassified statements, some argue that an Iranian ICBM test is likely before 2010, and very likely before 2015. Other U.S. officials believe, however, that there is "less than an even chance" for such a test before 2015. Furthermore, U.S. assessments are also conditional in that an Iranian ICBM capability would have to rely on access to foreign technology, from, for example, North Korea or Russia.
Longer range versions of the Shahab-3, variously referred to as Shahab-3 variants, the Shahab-3A, Shahab-3B, and Shahab-4, and a BM-25, may have range capabilities of 1,500-2,500 kilometers. These missiles potentially could reach targets throughout the Middle East, Turkey, and into southeastern Europe. Some have reported that perhaps several dozen or more of these missile types may be deployed and operational. Some Chinese, North Korean, or Russian involvement is suspected.
Iran said it successfully test fired a 2-stage solid-fuel missile with a 2,000 kilometer range in November 2008.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS22758.pdf
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 6:46pm
IAEA info suggests Iran worked on nuclear missile
Updated Tue. Sep. 16 2008 12:31 PM ET
The Associated Press
VIENNA, Austria -- The U.N. nuclear agency has presented intelligence allegedly showing plans to redesign an Iranian missile to accommodate a nuclear payload.
The International Atomic Energy Agency shared the intelligence with 35 nations on Tuesday,
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 6:48pm
CCC,
I would recommend reading the info on this link. While the top portion concerns the Aircraft, it goes into detail about their missile capabilities because the AFAGIR also controls the missile command.
<The Air Force of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (AFAGIR), also known as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Air Force (IRGC AF), is the air force within the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (Islamic Revolutionary Guards). Parallel to the regular Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF), the regular air branch of the Military of Iran, the Revolutionary Guards' have their own air force. It shares facilities with the IRIAF.>
http://tinyurl.com/p92bvq
http://tinyurl.com/pn8fdk
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 7:07pm
1. Iran isn't that much of an imminent threat and Dubya knew it and was trying...GASP!...diplomacy.
2. He was so stupid that he didn't realize how much of an imminent threat they were as YOU seem to know.
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 11:37am
Your problem Mask is your ideas are set in stone regardless of the changing circumstances which could lead us to the conclusion that you are even dumber than W, who after observing Iran for 7 years probably came to the reasonable conclusion that Iran's threat was wind rather than WMD.
Write this somewhere on your note pad Mask:
"I've told everyone I'm not an extremist so I must remember that changed circumstances may mean a change in policy. Also I must understand that that is a rational response". (Probably would stuff up your little archives game though).
(As you know I've never considered Iran, or Iraq for that matter a threat to the security of the US or the West. Israel, as a sovereign nation, will do what it feels it has to without America's permission. Iran could be taken out pretty easily by either country, without putting a foot on the ground, if hot air eventually gives way to serious WMD territory).
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/19/2009 @ 7:35pm
IAEA info suggests Iran worked on nuclear missile
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 6:48pm
yeah, and the u.s. has 17,6665,453,,,22334,,34565 nuclear weapons (and, and, and.....)
iran hasn't invaded anybody in over 200 years.
if i remember correctly, the u.s. was trying to take over this part of the block less than 200 years ago.
if you really cared about humans (not just the ones who read YOUR book, mr. prophet) you would start at home.
hypocrite.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2009 @ 8:20pm
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2009 @ 3:22pm: Absolutely. However, I go by the hard engineering tests that have been done to date. They are good now and will only get better.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/19/2009 @ 8:49pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 6:46pm
So once again we are talking about invading a country on less than shaky evidence? When we get there are we going to be made a fool of again?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2009 @ 9:23pm
Incidentally the only countries that could and might present a real WMD threat to US security are Russia, at present and China in the future.
It seems China is quite happy to be a good buyer of US Bonds and if the US and European markets continue to buy manufactured goods from it, all should be sweet . China's present objective, stated and implicit, is to bring its people up to the living standard that we in the West enjoy. So making a profitable peace, not costly war is likely to be China's approach for some time to come.
A few days ago our Left wing PM who thought he had China in his pocket was told in no uncertain terms, by China's leadership, that China had a far better relationship with Australia when the right wing Howard was PM.
Poor old KRudd got a rush of blood to the head when he announced he was throwing a lot of funding in our military's direction and got carried away by his own rhetoric,which was along the lines that we are building our military, which was required to protect us (20 million of us) against the China threat (1.5 billion of them). China is still scratching its head as it is keeping us in clover by generously buying up our minerals and other resources as fast as we can dig them up.
That's what happens when a lefty starts talking tough. Just hope big O doesn't get similar delusions of grandeur and co-opt Rudd as his deputy sheriff in these here parts. Anyway I'm going to enroll in Mandarin language classes just in case.
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/19/2009 @ 10:03pm
"Incidentally the only countries that could and might present a real WMD threat to US security are Russia, at present and China in the future."
China doesn't need to bomb us. For God's sake they own half our country.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2009 @ 10:23pm
I'm so glad the election's over, and the paranoid have returned to their proper position and posture - cowering in the corner, muttering paranoid, grandiose nonsense:
Larry's Limbaugh today --
That's what's at stake (steak where?)
That's what's under assault here (here? there's only you Rush and the Clear Channel microphone. So, OK, so you're assaulting something?)
by a bunch of people (oh, could spinner - the seething brown masses are ass-aulting what or who?)
who think this country is unjust (woops more about the bad bad people and their bad bad ideas-- yes, I see, they weally weally think America bad wery bad!)
and immoral (yes, yes, a massive swath of land, people, animals, dirt... and this entity is immoral? Could it be both immoral, moral and neither of these, like the asphalt on Highway 18?)
and has been since before they came to power. (spoookeeee, bad people in power! just not anywhere near the microphone - well at least there's that)
Now it's time for us to pay the price for our greed, our gluttony, slovenliness, and for the destruction of the planet (but Reverend Limbaugh, you sound a lot like an evangelical. Oh but you mean this is what those bunch of people, in power, who voted for the Magic Negro-Muslim... you mean they are sure not being good Christians like you? Whatever, you go girl, work that mike!)
Posted by winyahn at 05/20/2009 @ 12:14am
Idiots. Appeasers. Everything is fine. Look at the news on www.foxnes.com about Iran testing a new missile today with a range of 1,200 KM. It can hit europe. Stagger what passes as news and "analysis".
Posted by mike63 at 05/20/2009 @ 06:48am
Sorry thats www.foxnews.com
Posted by mike63 at 05/20/2009 @ 06:48am
Posted by mike63 at 05/20/2009 @ 06:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
good morning fellow idiot.
i don't have a problem with developing missile defenses either. and i don't care who the threat is.
i don't think it is inexorable that the world situation will necesitate hypervigilance in terms of iran, but what do i know? i might be wrong.
depending on how things go in the undiscovered country of the future, could be someone else that we will need to worry about.
and if the russians are so upset over this, why not cooperate with them?
civilized nations need to consider the consequences of trying to solve all the problems by imposing order and alien institutions by force unto societies that may not ever be ready for such, and certainly not if imposed from outside.
i firmly believe that internationalism has its limits and am more of the opinion that economic autarky is the true path to power, that good fences make good neighbors, that we cannot fix all the problems, especially other peoples' problems, and...
that developing effective defense systems that enable us to mind our own business behind a secure wall of defensive capabilities (which include the ability to strike out at those who plot evil against us) is the heart of wisdom.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 08:34am
W, who after observing Iran for 7 years probably came to the reasonable conclusion that Iran's threat was wind rather than WMD.----Posted by lrjones4 at 05/19/2009 @ 7:35pm
Fine, JONES....but again, that contradicts your typical neo-con (like Larry/antisoc) who tell us Iran will "have a nuke in 1-2 years and must be STOPPED by 'any means necessary'!"
So again, how do they resolve that?
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 08:43am
Fine, JONES....but again, that contradicts your typical neo-con (like Larry/antisoc) who tell us Iran will "have a nuke in 1-2 years and must be STOPPED by 'any means necessary'!"
So again, how do they resolve that?
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 08:43am
Mask I rock up here to have my opinions challenged and hopefully refined so unlike you I'm not a cheer leader for the Democrats nor do I know enough about the GOP to detect any significant difference between the two parties.
I appreciate Liberty's input on a wide range of issues and I like Comanche's often tongue in cheek (I think) stirring.
We are more or less in the conservative camp so, unlike libs and lefties who are obviously either catechised into group thinking (that Catholic thing keeps rearing its head) or are just naturally sycophantic and get a kick out of poking sticks at those who are neither, we are allowed to do our own thinking and thus have different opinions on various issues. That such a state of affairs should seem strange to you seems strange to me.
I don't know why I do it Mask. I guess I just like to help people, so let me fill you in on a bit of (your) political history. New Conservatives (Neo-Cons) are really a bunch of Leftists who unlike you (again) began to see the hole in the donut and defected to the GOP but still were a bit on the liberal side of social policy. I'm pretty sure that Liberty has never had a Liberal or Left wing thought in his life. Same here. So we are just old time conservatives, which can be a very broad church, but without even the smell of liberalism on our clothes.
However if removing a psychopathic and barbaric dictator, who used WMD on his people in such places as Halabja, where 5000 women and children were gassed to death makes one a Neo-Con, count me in.
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/20/2009 @ 09:57am
Posted by OneVote at 05/19/2009 @ 4:31pm
To be fair, this is the magazine that was founded to oppose the invasion of Iraq. It's foreign policy writers tend to be isolationists, "realists" or libertarians. It doesn't mean they weren't wrong about Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 80's, but they're not wild-eyed nuts, either.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2009 @ 09:58am
Fine, JONES....but again, that contradicts your typical neo-con (like Larry/antisoc) who tell us Iran will "have a nuke in 1-2 years and must be STOPPED by 'any means necessary'!"
So again, how do they resolve that?
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 08:43am
So, is Obama a neo-con because he says that Iran must not be allowed to have nuke weapons and that "all options must remain on the table"?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 10:40am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 10:40am
But Larry, YOU've already said you don't see any hope for diplomacy.
"Iran has told the world that it is not willing to compromise. So on what basis do you continue to attempt diplomacy?"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 2:40pm
So unlike Obama AND Bush, you have already decided what should be "on the table", haven't you?
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 10:43am
OK, Here We Go! Breaking News.
Iran can now strike Israel and U.S. Bases.
Advice to Bibi: Pay no attention to The Nation
==
Iran Announces Successful Missile Test By Thomas Erdbrink and Debbi Wilgoren Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, May 20, 2009; 10:55 AM
SEMNAN, Iran, May 20 -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Wednesday that his country had successfully launched a medium-range missile, just two days after President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu discussed the importance of halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The missile was test-fired in Semnan province, east of Tehran. Ahmadinejad visited the province Wednesday as part of a campaign tour in advance of national elections June 12.
The hard-line Iranian leader told a crowd of several thousand that the missile -- which according to previous descriptions by Iranian officials would be capable of striking Israel or U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf region -- was an important scientific achievement. But he also described the launch in belligerent terms as a blow to those trying to thwart Iran's nuclear program.
"In the nuclear case, we send them a message: Today the Islamic Republic of Iran is running the show," Ahmadinejad said in a speech at a soccer stadium that was broadcast live on Iranian television. "We say to the superpowers, who of you dare to threaten the Iranian nation? Raise your hand! But they all stand there with their hands behind their backs.
"Every center of power which wants to shoot a bullet, before it can put its finger on the trigger, we will cut its hands and send it to hell."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/ AR2009052000523.html? hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
(link may contain extra spaces)
Posted by sjchermak at 05/20/2009 @ 10:48am
Posted by snowball666 at 05/20/2009 @ 08:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
not in love with the idea, but at least the high tech nature of it should produce spinnoff technologies with unforseen benefits. low level funding and implementation is fine with me.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 11:16am
But Larry, YOU've already said you don't see any hope for diplomacy.
"Iran has told the world that it is not willing to compromise. So on what basis do you continue to attempt diplomacy?"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/19/2009 @ 2:40pm
So unlike Obama AND Bush, you have already decided what should be "on the table", haven't you?
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 10:43am
And you're still refusing to answer the question.
Is Obama wrong to state that all options must remain on the table?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 12:00pm
but at least the high tech nature of it should produce spinnoff technologies with unforseen benefits.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 11:16am
fund death!
it will make your kids future brighter.
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 12:02pm
For all their bluster and photoshop prowess, they are no less laughable than North Korea when it comes to "mounting a real threat" against the US of A and would be wiped off the map just as hastily.
Posted by snowball666 at 05/20/2009 @ 08:59am
actually,
debt is wiping the us of a of the map.
from within....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 12:03pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 12:00pm
No, answered that. But unlike you, he's not already given up on diplomacy and revving up the B-2 Spirits and the Tomahawks.....
or do you wish to deny that and then re-affirm that (as you did in your post where you first stated "You have no problem with diplomacy" and then "They aren't going to negotiate, they'er hell-bent on desttroying Israel")????
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 12:21pm
Posted by sjchermak at 05/20/2009 @ 10:48am
Hey, SJCHER, how did they create a medium-range missile system from scratch in only 5 months?
Working 24/7 since Inauguration Day???
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 12:23pm
Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2009 @ 09:58am | ignore this person | warn this person
Ah.....anti-war Conservatives. Didn't know there was such a thing. Like Liburty here.....says he is a Libertarian, but is a war monger.
Thanks for the qualification. I think I may be too optimistic (realistic) as yet.
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 1:12pm
No, answered that. But unlike you, he's not already given up on diplomacy and revving up the B-2 Spirits and the Tomahawks.....
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 12:21pm
There is no contradiction in my statements.
Diplomacy is always an option when the enemy indicates they are willing to negotiate.
To date there is no such indication from Iran and Sec Clinton suggested that other options remain on the table
<In an appearance Wednesday before a Senate Appropriations panel, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did not comment directly on the launch, but did say that a nuclear-armed Iran would "spark an arms race."
Clinton reiterated that the Obama administration opposed Iran getting a nuclear weapons capability and that it was relying for now on diplomatic pressure to stop it.>
< WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama Thursday extended US sanctions for at least another year, saying the Iranian government's policies continue to pose an ‘extraordinary threat' to the US.
‘The actions and policies of the government of Iran are contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States,' Obama said.>
Just to remind you Mask
<WASHINGTON - US secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton Tuesday said she would not rule out the possible use of military force by the Obama administration to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.
‘We are not taking any options off the table at all,' Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during her confirmation hearings to become the top US diplomat.>
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:19pm
Mask,
We have addressed the issue you raise before. I know what you are getting at, you have only repeated the theme about 12,989,477,283,477 times.
Being a lib, you probably think that people you argue with on the web are forgetful or stupid.
I do not live in the Commonwealth, but I have been through and spent more time in Pennsylvania than I can account for, so Obama probably assumes I am stupid and rely on guns and God, and maybe you do, too.
(Side note: people should rely on God, and a gun can be handy some times also. I guess I have become a Pennsylvanian by absorption).
What to do now (about Iran, not Pennsylvania) is the question. The editors of The Nation, in this case on this thread Robert Dreyfuss, say that Bibi should not have a cow.
Of course not. Bibi should not have a cow. Bibi needs to (and I am confident is) make plans to bomb the living daylights out of Iranian facilities that could produce nukes, if that becomes necessary (as it almost certainly will) to stop Iran from getting nukes.
Libs on The Nation are worried about Bibi having a cow. I am not worried. I have confidence that Bibi will do the right thing.
Posted by sjchermak at 05/20/2009 @ 1:32pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:19pm
Didn't say it was a "contradiction", Larry.
Said you stand apart from Obama AND BUSH's position, that diplomacy with Iran is an avenue to be explored.
As I noted from the beginning, the contradiction is from die-hard 28%ers like you and SJCHER who keep telling us what a great Prez Dubya was and how he "protected us" and "went toe-to-toe with the terr'urrists and their state sponsors"...
but left Iran un-touched and in fact was trying to TALK to them, like that "naive appeaser" Obama?!?!??!!???
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 1:44pm
I have confidence that Bibi will do the right thing.----Posted by sjchermak at 05/20/2009 @ 1:32pm
What is "the right thing"? (I think we all know what you'll say)
but more importantly, why didn't DUBYA do it?
BTW, just became a fan of Michael Savage....atleast on one topic...heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 1:46pm
Didn't say it was a "contradiction", Larry.
Said you stand apart from Obama AND BUSH's position, that diplomacy with Iran is an avenue to be explored.
As I noted from the beginning, the contradiction is from die-hard 28%ers like you and SJCHER who keep telling us what a great Prez Dubya was and how he "protected us" and "went toe-to-toe with the terr'urrists and their state sponsors"...
but left Iran un-touched and in fact was trying to TALK to them, like that "naive appeaser" Obama?!?!??!!???
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 1:44pm
Again, I've repeatedly said that I agree that diplomacy is an avenue to be explored; but you cannot enter into diplomatic discusssions with an enemy who refuses to entertain any idea of abandoning or even compromising on the issues that have created the hostile state of relations.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:55pm
Mask,
You repeat: ".....but more importantly, why didn't DUBYA do it? ....."
Up above, I already said we have addressed this in the past.
Even we Pennsylvanians who Obama thinks are stupid know that means..... YOUR QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED BEFORE!!
Question for you: Why are you asking it again?
Posted by sjchermak at 05/20/2009 @ 2:01pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hostile relations?
As I recall Iran helped us in Afghanistan, and mourned our loss on 9/11. This is your enemy - not ours. You are the "hostile," not they.
How about your Zionist friend Wolfowitz helping Shites in Iraq versus Sunni (Bathists)....knowing full well that this would strengthen Iranian influence over Iraq. When exactly did Iran become our mortal enemy? Wolfowitz called Sunni "Nazis." He made every effort to halt Sunni Awakening by doing so fomented insurgence and violence. A little bio on Wolfowitz...
'Paul Wolfowitz
Former Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz was the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. He later was appointed head of the World Bank but resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power.'
Iran is second phase of Perle's wet dream. Take Iraq, and then on to Iran. So - we make Iran our mortal enemy once Iraq is neutralized and helpless? Is that the plan?
You and your ilk are dangerous.
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 2:21pm
hey onevote
not to quibble, but your comment appears to internally inconsistent. You seem to refer to Wolfowitz' Jewish and Israeli connections (BTW, my sister also lives in Israel, but that doesn't in any way indicate whether I'm a neocon or not)to support the claim that Zionists are pushing America to oppose Iran, but you also say that Wolfowitz supported the Shiites over the Sunnis. Accordingly, I don't understand your point.
Posted by gren at 05/20/2009 @ 2:32pm
Posted by gren at 05/20/2009 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Religious majority in Iran is Sunni or Shia?
The inconsistency here is Wolfie's, not mine. If Iran is mortal enemy of Israel, why support Shia in southeastern Iraq who have obvious religious ties to Shia in Iran?
Answer: Both Saddam and Ahmadinejad are not "friends" of Israel. My enemy's enemy is my friend, right Gren.
So, Wolfowitz doesn't mind strengthening Iranian influence for purposes of neutralizing Iraq, but once that is accomplished, Phase II begins to create a monster of Ahmadinejad and Iranians.
The inconsistency is breathtaking on its surface, but follows lockstep with Zionist plans to remake ME.
So, the how many mortal enemies does Israel have?
Don't forget, Israel gladly sold arms to post revolution Iran, to be used against Saddam.
Wolfowitz has American blood on his hands by fomenting insurgency. The story is out - check out Rachel Maddow last night. We ought to deport this character to Israel right now. He can move in with his sister.
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 3:09pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:55pm
Yes, Larry. So explain why Dubya who "protected us for 7 years" and "took the fight to the terr'urrists"....tried to TALK to the Iranians and didn't understand what YOU understand...that it was fruitless???
Posted by sjchermak at 05/20/2009 @ 2:01pm
No, SJCHER, you actually HAVEN'T answer that question because...you can't. Would mean contradicting either your Dubya worship or your "imminent doom" view of Iran.
BTW, Limbaugh's a phoney...heard it from a good "savage" source...heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 3:25pm
fund death!
it will make your kids future brighter.
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 12:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well it seems to me like this specific weapon system is designed to prevent deaths...
and like it or not many useful discoveries are made from military research which have non death applications.
really - that's just the way it is.
i mean...if we were researching and developing bigger and deadlier nuclear bombs, i'd be all against it. fact is this technology actually has lots of non-military applications. even the military application (preventing missiles from hitting targets) is laudable imo.
not everything is reducible to simplistic gut reactions.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 3:34pm
tell onevote
Or maybe Wolfowitz was acting based on his perception of American interests, and Israeli interests did not enter into his calculations.
I sense that you sometimes think that every Zionist is an Israeli agent who always acts according to the interests of Israel, but in fact being a Zionist is not a full-time preoccupation. I sometimes go days at a time without any thought of Israel. Like everyone else, I'm an agent for I-Self, Inc. LOL
Posted by gren at 05/20/2009 @ 4:24pm
"Being a lib, you probably think that people you argue with on the web are forgetful or stupid. "
You're not helping your case with statements like these.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2009 @ 5:01pm
Posted by sjchermak at 05/20/2009 @ 1:32pm
Bibi, won't do the right thing. Here is why. For so long Iran has been pulling at the leash it has on America that we have forgotten one simple fact. This is a one sided alliance. Most of the support, diplomatic and military, is going FROM America TO Israel. Which means if they ever violate our alliance and do something during a Presidency that has someone who won't put up with it, they lose big time. Who else is going to give them weapons?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2009 @ 5:10pm
Posted by gren at 05/20/2009 @ 4:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
When you have mainstream media questioning the actions of Wolfowitz and whether his actions aggravated and prolonged insurgency, which in turn caused more American deaths, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone outside the Zionist camp that Wolfowitz was acting in manner beneficial to American interests. Now, please point out to me any articles of interest from the Zionist community which advocates excommunication of Wolfowitz based on his aiding and abetting the new mortal enemy Iran.
The European and international community's reception of the idea of Wolfowitz as World Bank president wasn't just based on his girlfriend, rather, it was based on rejection of a Zionist as head of World Bank and the usurpation of the Bank's agenda for a country that is at odds with world opinion.
Gren - you say you are a Zionist, but I really think you are playing devil's advocate for entertainment, and I believe that if you really think you are one, you have serious conflicts with the die-hard zealots of your tribe in which you are likely going to be relegated to the self-loathing faction if you continue to exhibit rational thought, and empathy and sympathy for others other than Jews. You likely are aware of this already.
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 5:34pm
EMERGING SHIA POWER IN THE AFTERMATH OF US WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ Guest Column by Hari Sud
Imagine 20 years from now, where US has finally concluded that its adventure in Iraq (or misadventure) from 2003 to 2007 was wrong and has completely obliterated its prestige in the Muslim world. The oil and gas shortages are beginning to show as dwindling reserves and supplies are hotly contested by the developed world and newly emerged world of India, China. Iraq after fighting a civil war amongst itself for ten years, has finally an established a majority rule. The Shias of Iraq have triumphed over the Sunni rule of thirteen centuries and have established themselves firmly in the port city of Basra. Their religious places of Najaf & Karbala are no longer under Sunni domination. The religious leaders are exerting more and more political pressure. Iran is playing a bigger role, not only in Iraqi politics but also over the Persian Gulf. Kuwaiti Sheikhs (Sunnis) and Saudi Arabian princes (Sunnis) are feeling the heat. They both cannot prevent emergence of a Shia power next door. US influence is limited in the aftermath of Gulf war II. Saudi princes are under pressure from the remnants of Al Qaeda and cannot take any direction due to infighting within the family. Iran, in-spite of US and Wests pressure has declared that it possesses a nuclear bomb. The net impact of all the above is the emergence of Shia power, quite unlike anything like this has ever happened in the past thirteen centuries. One hundred million Shias who are likely to dominate the Persian Gulf are too numerous for anybody in the Middle East to challenge them.
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 5:41pm
The new Shia dominion has geographically divided the Muslim crescent in the Middle East into two, with Sunni Pakistan and Afghans in the East and Sunni Arabs in the West. That is the scenario that will be unfolding in next twenty years.
Unfortunately that was not the US intention in 2003. It is the outcome of war fought with no clear political objective and mired in controversy from the start.'
Excerpt - cite to above, from South Asia Analysis Group 01/19/06
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 5:42pm
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 5:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
nice find!!!
i'm liking this scenario. splinters the islamic world, we bug out and develop the ability to no longer need resources from that region, dar-al-islam is firmly divided and its violent tendencies directed inward (those shias ans sunnis hate each other big time). hell, maybe they even get their "30 years war" and finally get sick of their spirit stifling religion just like christian europe did back in the 17th century and laid back presbyluthaterian style islam becomes the norm.
what a beautiful world...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 6:17pm
Who else is going to give them weapons?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2009 @ 5:10pm
Germany does including 5 Dolphin class subs.
France does; It was the French who helped Israel develop their nukes.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 7:02pm
what a beautiful world...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 6:17pm
yep!!
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 7:34pm
Germany does including 5 Dolphin class subs.
France does; It was the French who helped Israel develop their nukes.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 7:02pm
Who gives them the bulk?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2009 @ 9:50pm
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous… Having said that, all options are on the table." - George W. Bush, February 2005
---------------------R-E-S-E-a-l-e-r-t--------------
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?'
Interview given to the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21, January 1998
Posted by winyahn at 05/20/2009 @ 10:13pm
and like it or not many useful discoveries are made from military research which have non death applications.
•• why waste our time? cut out the middle death, er, man.
really - that's just the way it is.
•• stupid humans.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 1:27pm