"‘We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now." - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Johnny Rotten · 09-18-2006, 08:24 PM

According to a retired colonel, on CNN.

Clip, with a brief summary: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/18/gardiner-iran/

Another quote: "The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a different state."

I can't say anything about this right now because it would rapidly degenerate into an ugly rant. Suffice to say we have a big fucking problem right now.

docbungle · 09-18-2006, 08:32 PM

Well, that is a very vague term: 'military operations.'

And a retired colonel would not be my preferred source of information regarding current military operations. Anywhere.

Willravel · 09-18-2006, 08:37 PM

*If* this is being done without congressional oversite, then impeachment isn't enough anymore. I belive that imprisonment should be considered. And on top of that, I'm going to pay a black friend of mine to get the Bush twins pregnant.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-18-2006, 08:54 PM

I wouldn't doubt that America is doing counter-intelligence/insurgent work in Iran. They are a big part of problems with the current state of Iraq, not to mention we have that whole Nuclear stand off thing going on with them. I in no way see how "possible" clandestine activity, from a retired military officer, equates to reason of suspicion. First substantiate that the American military is acting, in any capacity, before calls for punishment beyond impeachment.

Ustwo · 09-18-2006, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

*If* this is being done without congressional oversite, then impeachment isn't enough anymore. I belive that imprisonment should be considered. And on top of that, I'm going to pay a black friend of mine to get the Bush twins pregnant.

Don't have the balls to rape them your self?

I'd think your views on 9/11 would be enough for this if you really believe it.

But silliness aside congress wants to be in charge for years and it just doesn't happen and every president in recent history, including Carter, has run afowl of congress on the War Powers Act.

I do hope we are using ground intel to back up the satillite data in order to inflict maximum damage to their nuclear program when the shoe falls.

Willravel · 09-18-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Don't have the balls to rape them your self?

Hey, I'm married. Also, have you seen them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

But silliness aside congress wants to be in charge for years and it just doesn't happen and every president in recent history, including Carter, has run afowl of congress on the War Powers Act.

I do hope we are using ground intel to back up the satillite data in order to inflict maximum damage to their nuclear program when the shoe falls.

Or we'll invade based on unreliable intel, try to rebuild their country by hiring military contractors, run into an insurgency, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have.

Johnny Rotten · 09-18-2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

Well, that is a very vague term: 'military operations.'

It's not vague when US military are inside the borders of a non-aligned state that has expressed violent hostility against the US and its regional ally, Isreal. It's rather more like the start of a war.

docbungle · 09-18-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

It's not vague when US military are inside the borders of a non-aligned state that has expressed violent hostility against the US and its regional ally, Isreal. It's rather more like the start of a war.

Well, then I'd hope that this particular retired military officer is just looking for a bit of attention, as they tend to do.

But without any other source of information, I can't view this as anything but pure speculation. And as far as a possible war with Iran, speculation is certainly nothing new.

As an aside, I believe a war with Iran (at this time) would blossom into something much more, and the U.S would be in a world of hurt in many, many ways.

Bill O'Rights · 09-19-2006, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm going to pay a black friend of mine to get the Bush twins pregnant.

You'd have to pay him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Hey, I'm married. Also, have you seen them?

Hell yeah, I've seen 'em. Say what you want about the old man. But the twins are definately doable.

Besides, if you're just going for the shock value, then I think there are better choices. Too bad we already took out Uday and Qusay. Ooooh...maybe that's why.

Hey! I just came up with a new conspiracy theory. We really invaded Iraq because Saddam offered George a dozen goats for his daughters, on behalf of his sons.

Don't laugh. I've heard stupider.

Now...as for the topic at hand. I need a little more than a retired Colonel before I raise too many hackles. Loud Colonels are a dime a dozen. Usually there's a reason they didn't get their star.

Still...if his allegations are factually based, then I would agree that imprisonment would be a option worth consideration. But, beyond simple intelligence gathering...that's a huge "if".

Ustwo · 09-19-2006, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Now...as for the topic at hand. I need a little more than a retired Colonel before I raise too many hackles. Loud Colonels are a dime a dozen. Usually there's a reason they didn't get their star.

Still...if his allegations are factually based, then I would agree that imprisonment would be a option worth consideration. But, beyond simple intelligence gathering...that's a huge "if".

O'rly?

Under what law?

dc_dux · 09-19-2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Under what law?

I agree the War Powers Act may have been enacted as a Congressional overreaction to Nixon and has been skirted by presidents since then, but until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it is still the law of the land.

Quote:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

(1) hasnt happended since Pearl Harbor
(3) is certainly not the current case with Iran

that leaves the nebulous
(2) which is how we got into the Iraq folly, with the October 2002 "Resolution to use Armed Forces against Iraq"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

It would seem to me, at the very least, a similar Congressional resolution is required.

I would include a provision that requires the "voluntary service" of children of the Pres, Vice Pres and members of Congress

Cynthetiq · 09-19-2006, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

*If* this is being done without congressional oversite, then impeachment isn't enough anymore. I belive that imprisonment should be considered. And on top of that, I'm going to pay a black friend of mine to get the Bush twins pregnant.

Isn't the POTUS as the Commander in chief allowed to take miliatry action without congressional approval within certain limits?

Ustwo · 09-19-2006, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I agree the War Powers Act may have been enacted as a Congressional overreaction to Nixon and has been skirted by presidents since then, but until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it is still the law of the land.

I have not read the full War Powers Act but I'm willing to bet there is no 'penalty' for violating.

Seaver · 09-19-2006, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Isn't the POTUS as the Commander in chief allowed to take miliatry action without congressional approval within certain limits?

Yes, the President is given 6 months of a blank check before he has to consult congress. And when he does, he does not have to address all of it. He can simply address the security council due to secrecy requirements and we'd never know about it, and it'd be perfectly legal.

So, dont expect to see GW in handcuffs anytime soon.

dc_dux · 09-19-2006, 06:10 AM

Quote:

I have not read the full War Powers Act but I'm willing to bet there is no 'penalty' for violating.

There is an "up to 6 months" requirement to report to Congress, but no penalty for violating the War Powers Act other than:

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

The broader "penalty" is the Constitutional obligation of the President to uphold the laws of the land.

roachboy · 09-19-2006, 08:00 AM

so let's see...there is some evidence that points to the opening rounds of yet another bush fiasco..and hey, just in time for the midterm elections..HOW ABOUT THEM APPLES?....and the far right set is worried primarily about questions of enforcement in the war powers act? i assume from this line of questioning that for the extremist rightwingers above anything goes so long as cowboy george does not directly face being hauled out of the white house in shackles.

obviously the bush people have been advancing a legal position that recognizes no meaningful brakes on the power of the executive to do what it likes under the aegis of its hallucinatory "war on terror"...(checks and balances be damned in the face of the Maniless of the Leader, He who Represents the Unity of the General Will, He whose actions would be Perfect were it not for those pesky folk who object to ill-concieved military adventures launched under false pretenses.)

the administration hasn't even changed its general m.o.: witness the iaec's response to republican warmarketing flim flam about iran's nuclear program:

Quote:

U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel
Paper on Nuclear Aims Called Dishonest

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 14, 2006; A17

U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.

The IAEA openly clashed with the Bush administration on pre-war assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents.

After no such weapons were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year.

Yesterday's letter, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, was the first time the IAEA has publicly disputed U.S. allegations about its Iran investigation. The agency noted five major errors in the committee's 29-page report, which said Iran's nuclear capabilities are more advanced than either the IAEA or U.S. intelligence has shown.

Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring.

When the congressional report was released last month, Hoekstra said his intent was "to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat." Spokesman Jamal Ware said yesterday that Hoekstra will respond to the IAEA letter.

Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a committee member, said the report was "clearly not prepared in a manner that we can rely on." He agreed to send it to the full committee for review, but the Republicans decided to make it public before then, he said in an interview.

The report was never voted on or discussed by the full committee. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the vice chairman, told Democratic colleagues in a private e-mail that the report "took a number of analytical shortcuts that present the Iran threat as more dire -- and the Intelligence Community's assessments as more certain -- than they are."

Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.

Negroponte's spokesman, John Callahan, said in a statement that his office "reviewed the report and provided its response to the committee on July 24, '06." He did not say whether it had approved or challenged any of the claims about Iran's capabilities.

"This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors."

The committee report, written by a single Republican staffer with a hard-line position on Iran, chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

It concluded that the lack of intelligence made it impossible to support talks with Tehran. Democrats on the committee saw it as an attempt from within conservative Republican circles to undermine Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has agreed to talk with the Iranians under certain conditions.

The report's author, Fredrick Fleitz, is a onetime CIA officer and special assistant to John R. Bolton, the administration's former point man on Iran at the State Department. Bolton, who is now ambassador to the United Nations, had been highly influential during President Bush's first term in drawing up a tough policy that rejected talks with Tehran.

Among the allegations in Fleitz's Iran report is that ElBaradei removed a senior inspector from the Iran investigation because he raised "concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program." The agency said the inspector has not been removed.

A suggestion that ElBaradei had an "unstated" policy that prevented inspectors from telling the truth about Iran's program was particularly "outrageous and dishonest," according to the IAEA letter, which was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, the IAEA's director for external affairs and a former Hungarian ambassador.

Hoekstra's committee is working on a separate report about North Korea that is also being written principally by Fleitz. A draft of the report, provided to The Post, includes several assertions about North Korea's weapons program that the intelligence officials said they cannot substantiate, including one that Pyongyang is already enriching uranium.

The intelligence community believes North Korea is trying to acquire an enrichment capability but has no proof that an enrichment facility has been built, the officials said.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091302052.html

Willravel · 09-19-2006, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Isn't the POTUS as the Commander in chief allowed to take miliatry action without congressional approval within certain limits?

Within certian limits.

BTW, I was joking a bit with my first post. As roach pointed out there are legitimate concerns about Iran, but I don't know how reliable the word of that colonel is. More pertinant are the arcitles and reports about how Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons.

Johnny Rotten · 09-19-2006, 07:19 PM

That point about Iran's plutonium enrichment level is an important one, I think. It looks like they're nowhere near making weapons with it. It's too bad that they've used so much hostile propaganda that suggests otherwise.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-19-2006, 07:42 PM

That enrichment level is a farce as far as information and fact runs. Since I suck at links, I am forced to quote myself...

Quote:

They have been enriching Uranium for 25 years; they claim only recently to have successfully done (for the first time as of April 2006) it to 3.5% a number that is significantly lower than what is necessary for a nuclear weapon. In reality soil samples around Iran were found at much high levels, Iran claims that it was due to contaminated material which they had purchased from Pakistan, or namely Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who was caught for selling nuclear technology, nuclear materials, and nuclear weaponry outlines to Libya, Iran, and North Korea... Wow, that sure is a jolly old bunch, I wonder what they might be after?

Sort of cute how in November of 2003 Baradei of the IAEA released a report spanning 30 pages which had found Iran has successfully completed the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle being Uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichement, fuel fabrication, heavy water production, a light water reactor, a heavy water research reactor, as well as various other developmental facilities... all in secret. They happen to forget to disclose the imports of uranium metal, yellow cake, uranium hexaflouride, and depleted uranium, that is conveneient. Or tell how it works out that Iran only recently said they had enriched Uranium as I pointed out above, at very modest levels, yet they were discovered by Division B of the IAEA to have already enriched uranium to extremely high levels in 2003, and the tests suggested that the samples had even been "cleaned" up. It's a fact since the George H. W. Bush administration their have been reports given to congress, stating that Iran had a "continuing interest" in nuclear weaopns and related technology, and that they were in the early stages of a weapons program. In 1982 it was disclosed that Iran had imported 531 meteric tons of yellowcake, that's more then Brazils nuclear reactors produce in a year; ofcourse they didn't disclose that they had been importing materials or enriching until 2003, again the program was at that point 22 years old.

This merely accounts as a brief, very narrow, summary of the lies and inconsistencies of the Iranian nuclear program.

Pacifier · 09-19-2006, 11:33 PM

"Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082201447.html

Where is that claim about the "531 meteric tons of yellowcake" from? I found nothing online about it.

Marvelous Marv · 09-19-2006, 11:45 PM

Quote:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

(1) hasnt happended since Pearl Harbor
(3) is certainly not the current case with Iran

that leaves the nebulous
(2) which is how we got into the Iraq folly, with the October 2002 "Resolution to use Armed Forces against Iraq"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html[

It's very humorous that you didn't find any dissonance in your post, namely having #3 so close to your "Iraq folly" creation. You seem to have ignored that:

1. Mohammed Atta met with the Iraqis in Prague.
2. According to George Tenet (who was it that appointed him to head the CIA?) the Iraq-Al Qaeda link went back ten years.
3. Al Zarqawi ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan before relocating to Baghdad.
4. Abu Nidal spent time in Iraq.
5. Saddam paid families of suicide bombers.
6. Iraq was declared a state sponsor of terrorism in 1990.

These were just some of the points I heard Dick Cheney bring up when attacked by Tim Russert a couple of weeks ago. Tim was so thoroughly outgunned by these facts he had to resort to hunting jokes. I'm sure there's a link to it somewhere.

In addition, there's always the Duelfer Report. It's only 1000 pages, so you could probably find it quoted in one of host's posts.

Quote:

It would seem to me, at the very least, a similar Congressional resolution is required.

I would include a provision that requires the "voluntary service" of children of the Pres, Vice Pres and members of Congress

Some of them ARE serving their country. Can you say the same? For the record, that "I'm showing patriotism by protesting" never convinced anyone.

Notice my tagline as well.

Bill O'Rights · 09-20-2006, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Some of them ARE serving their country.

With 100 senators, 435 House members and...oh, I dunno...maybe 200 or so, plus or minus, within the Bush administration...how many currently have sons or daughters serving in the military?

And of those who do, how many of them are serving in Iraq? Of those serving in Iraq, should there be any, how many are serving in the Green Zone? Finally, of those serving in Iraq, how many are serving in combat outside the Green Zone?

Seriously. Anyone? I really want to know. I somehow can't help but feel that if more of these government officials had children who had been drafted to serve and fight in this conflict, things would have gone a bit differently.

I see an undermanned military being led by those that have never served. Or, if they did, it was from the confines of a plush clear zone. Not only that...but I see these same "Chicken Hawks" castigating decorated combat veterans over their lack of "patriotism" for daring to speak up in criticism of the war. Excuse me? Is this a bad Twilight Zone episode?

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

With 100 senators, 435 House members and...oh, I dunno...maybe 200 or so, plus or minus, within the Bush administration...how many currently have sons or daughters serving in the military?

And of those who do, how many of them are serving in Iraq? Of those serving in Iraq, should there be any, how many are serving in the Green Zone? Finally, of those serving in Iraq, how many are serving in combat outside the Green Zone?

Seriously. Anyone? I really want to know. I somehow can't help but feel that if more of these government officials had children who had been drafted to serve and fight in this conflict, things would have gone a bit differently.

I see an undermanned military being led by those that have never served. Or, if they did, it was from the confines of a plush clear zone. Not only that...but I see these same "Chicken Hawks" castigating decorated combat veterans over their lack of "patriotism" for daring to speak up in criticism of the war. Excuse me? Is this a bad Twilight Zone episode?

Bill let me get this straight. Its ok to bitch, whine, and moan about any military action if you haven't served but its not ok to support one if you haven't? Is the requirement for advocating military action having a loved one in the line of fire? This is a ridiculous line of reasoning, especially with a volunteer military.

But I think we should extrapolate it further.

Since a majority by number, and % of population of combat troops are white males (white males are a disproportionate % of the combat troops based on race) only white males should have any say on Iraq policy?

Or maybe....

Since the top 25% income earners pay 84% of the federal taxes, perhaps they should have all the say in how its spent. Hey even better lets do it proportionately, the more tax you pay the more you get to decide government policy.

The line of reasoning that you have to have someone you love in combat directly in order to show support is not meant in any sort of fairness by the left, its just a way to stifle debate.

dc_dux · 09-20-2006, 05:48 AM

Marv....as to your first three "facts", the evidence, particularly from the recent Phase II of the Senate Intelligence report, says otherwise. No reason to play that game with you.

Among the conclusions of the Senate report:

…Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support…Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin.

Its unfortunate that Bush is continuing to pressure the Sen Intel Committee from releasing the full report.

Feel free to believe what Cheney tells you to justify their actions.. I would just say "You can put wings on a pig, but you don't make it an eagle." (credit to BIll Clinton)

My fear is that it will be deja vu all over again with Iran,with the Adminstration creating or maniupuating intelligence to meet its objective. The Senate, showing its wisdom in a bi-paratisan way, passed a bill introduced by Harry Reid and Joe Biden, to at least put some safeguards in place to prevent a reoccurence of the "Iraq intelligence folly" (there I go again with "folly").

The Iran Intelligence Oversight Act will:

-- Require an updated national intelligence estimate on Iran with an unclassified summary available to inform debate by Congress and the American people

-- Require the President to report to Congress on his objectives regarding Iran and his strategy for achieving them

-- Require the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on the current policies and practices for vetting and clearing statements of senior Administration officials that are drawn from intelligence; how significant misstatements of intelligence in public statements of senior public officials are identified, brought to the attention of any such officials, and corrected; and recommend any process improvements.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=67761

The bill was included in the Senate version of the '07 Defense Appropriations bill, but it is highly unlikely that Bush's buddies in the House will accept it in conference. Instead, the House will release reports with faulty intelligence as noted in #16 above. Not that it matters because Bush continues to threaten to veto the Defense Approp. bill unless it has the prisoner interrogation language that he so desperately wants in order to continue to vioalte the Geneva Convention.

BTW, I was only being half serious about requirement family members of Congress to be "volunteered."

We will have enough problems with many of the new volunteers. Someone mentioned in another thread about the number of people volunteering for the military. One reason is the number of waivers that are now being given, including dropping the requirement for a HS diploma, allowing a criminal record or a mental illness, accepting know skinhead aryan nation types and urban gang members, etc....but that is the subject for another thread.

roachboy · 09-20-2006, 06:59 AM

i thought that the text of Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday would be interesting to read---it is curiously difficult to find in the american press.

i am not fan of this guy, particularly given the kind of idiocy he seems to think helps him position iran internationally on the topic of israel. however, if you push aside this register of nonsense and read what the guy says otherwise, it becomes perhaps easier to see why the bushpeople regard him as a problem. it appears to have little to do with that the administration claims is the case:

Quote:

Full text of President Ahmadinejad's speech at General Assembly

IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

United Nations, New York, Sept 17, IRNA
Iran-UN-President
Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday offered proposal on nuclear program.

The following is full text of President Ahmadinejad before the Sixtieth Session of the United Nations General Assembly:
"In the Name of the God of Mercy, Compassion, Peace, Freedom and Justice
"Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
"Today we have gathered here to exchange views about the world, its future and our common responsibilities towards it. It is evident that the future of the world is intertwined with its current state and the prevailing trends ,which exhibit signs of hope and despair.

"On the one hand certain hopes and opportunities exist, and this august Assembly is convened on such hopes. Today human thought reflects outstanding commonalities which provide appropriate grounds to build upon. With the passing of the era of agnostic philosophies, today humanity is once again joined in celebrating monotheism and belief in the Creator as the originator of existence. This is the common thread which binds us all.

"Faith will prove to be the solution to many of today's problems.

The Truth will shine the light of faith and ethics on the life of human beings and prevent them from aggression, coercion and injustice and will guide them towards care and compassion for fellow beings.

"Another hope is the common global appreciation of the sources of knowledge. Although reason, experience and science are among valuable sources of knowledge, the darkness of the Middle Ages deprived major portions of the Western world of appreciating. This reactionary tendency deprived many of access to various scientific findings and knowledge and led to the exclusion of other sources of knowledge namely God and knowledge based on revelation from the life of human beings in the West; Divine knowledge that was carried and disseminated by such prophets as Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad (peace be upon them).

"Today, agnostic thinking is on the decline and presently humanity is equally enamored with religion knowledge and spirituality. This is an auspicious beginning. Divine prophets teach us about proper regard for the exalted state of human beings on earth.

"The human being is blessed with dignity, most importantly manifested in being the viceroy of the Almighty on earth. The Almighty placed humans on earth to develop it, institutionalize justice, overcome their egoistic tendencies and praise no lord but the Almighty.

"Faith and good deeds can bring deliverance and the good life even in this world. Attaining this depends on human will, that is the will of each and every one of us. We must heed the call of our common primordial nature and achieve the realization of this good life.

"On the other hand, the prevalence of military domination, increasing poverty, the growing gap between rich and poor countries, violence as a means to solve crises, spread of terrorism, specially state terrorism, existence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the pervasive lack of honesty in interstate relations, and disregard for the equal rights of peoples and nations in international relations constitute some of the challenges and threats.

"Although these challenges are very real, we believe we are not predestined to experience them. Our common will not only can change this course but in fact can lead us to a life filled with hope and prosperity. Divine revelation teaches us that "The Almighty changes the fate of no people unless they themselves show a will for change" (Holy Quran, 13:11).

"How can we influence the future of the world? When and how will peace, tranquility and well-being for all come about? These are the fundamental questions before us.

"We believe that a sustainable order, nurturing and flourishing peace and tranquility, can only be realized on the two pillars of justice and spirituality. The more human society departs from justice and spirituality, the greater insecurity it will face, so much so that a relatively small crisis, such as a natural disaster, leads to various abnormalities and inhuman behavior.

"Unfortunately, the world is rife with discrimination and poverty.

Discrimination produces hatred, war and terrorism. They all share the common root of lack of spirituality coupled with injustice. Justice is about equal rights, the correct distribution of resources in the territories of different states, the equality of all before the law and respect for international agreements.

"Justice recognizes the right of every one to tranquility, peace and a dignified life. Justice rejects intimidation and double standards. As the eminent daughter of the Prophet of Islam has said, "justice brings tranquility and harmony to our hearts."
"Today, the world is longing for the establishment of such justice. If humanity heeds the call of its primordial nature with firm resolve, justice will emerge. This is what the Almighty has promised and all people of good will from all religions are waiting for. If the prevailing discourse of global relations becomes one of justice and spirituality, then durable peace will be guaranteed.

"Conversely, if international relations are defined without justice and spirituality and void of moral considerations, then the mechanisms for promoting confidence and peace will remain insufficient and ineffective.

"If some, relying on their superior military and economic might, attempt to expand their rights and privileges, they will be performing a great disservice to the cause of peace and in fact will fuel the arms race and spread insecurity, fear and deception. If global trends continue to serve the interests of small influential groups, even the interests of the citizens of powerful countries will be jeopardized, as was seen in the recent crises and the even natural disaster such as the recent tragic hurricane.

"Today, my nation calls on other nations and governments to "move forward to a durable tranquility and peace based on justice and spirituality."
"Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
"The Islamic Republic of Iran is born out of a movement, based on the pure primordial nature of a people who rose up to regain their dignity esteem and human rights. The Islamic Revolution toppled a regime, which had been put in place through a coup, and supported by those who claim to be advocates of democracy and human rights, thwarted the aspirations of the nation for development and progress for 25 years through intimidation and torture of the populace and submission and subservience to outsiders.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is the manifestation of true democracy in the region. The discourse of the Iranian nation is focused on respect for the rights of human beings and a quest for tranquillity, peace, justice and development for all through monotheism.

"For 8 years, Saddam's regime imposed a massive war of aggression and occupation on my people. It employed the most heinous weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons against Iranians and Iraqis alike. Who, in fact, armed Saddam with these weapons? What was the reaction of those who now claim to fight against WMDs regarding the use of chemical weapons back then? The world is witness to the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran, because of its humanitarian principles, even during the most testing of times and when it was sustaining the highest number of casualties, never allowed itself to use such weapons.

"Thousands of nuclear warheads that are stockpiled in various locations coupled with programs to further develop these inhuman weapons have created a new atmosphere of repression and the rule of the machines of war, threatening the international community and even the citizens of the countries that possess them.

"Ironically, those who have actually used nuclear weapons, continue to produce, stockpile and extensively test such weapons, have used depleted uranium bombs and bullets against tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Kuwaitis, and even their own soldiers and those of their allies, afflicting them with incurable diseases, blatantly violate their obligations under the NPT, have refrained from signing the CTBT and have armed the Zionist occupation regime with WMDs, are not only refusing to remedy their past deeds, but in clear breech of the NPT, are trying to prevent other countries from acquiring the technology to produce peaceful nuclear energy.

"All these problems emanate from the fact that justice and spirituality are missing in the way powerful governments conduct their affairs with other nations.

"After September 11, a particular radical group was accused of terrorist activities -- although it was never explained how such huge intelligence gathering and security organizations failed to prevent such an extensive and well planned operation.

"Why powers that, not so long ago, were supporting the activities of such groups in Afghanistan and thus portraying themselves as supporters of human rights and the Afghan people have over night turned into their most fierce critic?
"Are we to believe that their benefactors ,i.e. the very same hegemonic powers have lost control?
"If the answer is yes, would it not be better for those powers to adopt an honest and transparent approach to the international community, provide precise information about the main elements and their arms and financial support system, and accept responsibility for their inhuman actions against nations and countries, and thereby assist peoples and nations to correctly, wisely and sincerely fight the roots of terrorism.

"We must endeavor to achieve sustainable tranquility and peace based on justice and spirituality.

"Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
"Terrorism and WMDs are two major threats before the international community. The Islamic Republic of Iran, as one of the main victims of terrorism and chemical weapons, fully appreciates the difficulties that lie ahead in the road to combat these menaces.

"Today, the most serious challenge is that the culprits are arrogating to themselves the role of the prosecutor. Even more dangerous is that certain parties relying on their power and wealth try to impose a climate of intimidation and injustice over the world make bullying, while through their huge media resources portray themselves as defenders of freedom, democracy and human rights.

"People around the world are fully aware of what is happening in the occupied Palestine. Women and children are being murdered and adolescents taken prisoner. Houses are being demolished and farms burnt down. Yet, when the people of Palestine resist these conditions, they are accused of terrorism. At the same time, the occupier, which does not abide by any principles and terror is part of its pronounced and routine policy enjoys the support of the previously mentioned governments. Let me be blunter. State terrorism is being supported by those who claim to fight terrorism.

"How can one talk about human rights and at the same time blatantly deny many the inalienable right to have access to science and technology with applications in medicine, industry and energy and through force and intimidation hinder their progress and development? "Can nations be deprived of scientific and technological progress through the threat of use of force and based on mere allegations of possibility of military diversion? We believe that all countries and nations are entitled to technological and scientific advancement in all fields, particularly the peaceful technology to produce nuclear fuel. Such access cannot be restricted to a few, depriving most nations and by establishing economic monopolies, use them as an instrument to expand their domination.

"We have gathered here to defend human rights in accordance with Charter of UN and prevent certain powers from claiming that "some countries have more rights "or that" some countries do not have the right to enjoy their legitimate rights".

"We must not, at the beginning of the 21st century, revert to the logic of the dark ages and once again try to deny societies access to scientific and technological advances.

"Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
"The UN must be the symbol of democracy and the equal rights of nations. If we talk about the equal rights of nations in political forums, we must talk of the same concept in this forum as well.

"Similarly, if we talk about the right of sovereignty, then all nations must be allowed to exercise their rights on an equal footing and in a democratic process.

"The UN can be the standard bearer of democracy in the world, when it, itself, is a manifestation of democratic process. I reiterate that durable tranquility and peace can only be built on justice and spirituality.

"Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
"The Islamic Republic of Iran is a symbol of true democracy. All officials including the Leader, President, members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, city and village councils are elected through the vote of the citizens. The Islamic Republic of Iran has held 27 national elections in 27 years. This showcases a vibrant and dynamic society in which people widely participate in the political life.

"Because of its key importance and influence in the important and strategic Middle East region, the Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to contribute actively to the promotion of peace and stability in the region.

"Saddam, Taliban regimes were both the products of foreign powers.

The people of Afghanistan and Iraq know very well who supported these two regimes.

"Today, to establish peace and security in the region, foreign occupation forces must leave and completely hand over the political and economic sovereignty of these two countries to their peoples. "The Islamic Republic of Iran will continue to provide full and comprehensive support to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and their elected governments, and will actively help them in the establishment of order and security. My country will continue and expand its sincere cooperation and interaction with them.

"In Palestine, a durable peace will be possible through justice, an end to discrimination and the occupation of Palestinian land, the return of all Palestinian refugees, and the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital.

"Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
"Today, more than ever, nations need constructive, positive and honest cooperation and interaction in order to enjoy a dignified, tranquil and peaceful life based on justice and spirituality. Let us enter into a collective covenant to realize this legitimate aspiration of our nations.

"Here, I would like to briefly talk about the approach and initiative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the nuclear issue.

Nuclear weapons and their proliferation, and attempts to impose an apartheid regime on access to peaceful nuclear energy, are two major threats, challenging international tranquility and peace.

"Keeping in mind that in past years no serious efforts complimented by practical mechanisms -- have been made to move towards full disarmament and more specifically implement the decisions and outcomes of the NPT Review Conferences of 1995 and 2000, I suggest that the General Assembly, as the most inclusive UN organ, mandate an ad-hoc committee to compile and submit a comprehensive report on possible practical mechanisms and strategies for complete disarmament.

"This Committee should also be asked to investigate as to how contrary to the NPT -- material, technology and equipment for nuclear weapons were transferred to the Zionist regime, and to propose practical measures for the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

"Some powerful states practice a discriminatory approach against access of NPT members to material, equipment, and peaceful nuclear technology, and by doing so, intend to impose a nuclear apartheid.

"We are concerned that once certain powerful states completely control nuclear energy resources and technology, they will deny access to and thus deepen the divide between powerful countries and the rest of the international community. When that happens, we will be divided into light and dark countries.

"Regrettably, in the past 30 years, no effective measure has been implemented to facilitate the exercise of the legally recognized right of NPT state-parties to have access to and use peaceful nuclear energy in accordance with article IV. Therefore, the General Assembly should ask the IAEA in accordance with article 2 of its Statute to report on violations by specific countries that have hindered the implementation of the above article and also produce practical strategies for its renewed implementation.

"What needs our particular attention is the fact that peaceful use of nuclear energy without possession of nuclear fuel cycle is an empty proposition. Nuclear power plants can indeed lead to total dependence of countries and peoples if they need to rely for their fuel on coercive powers, who do not refrain from any measure in furtherance of their interests. No popularly elected and responsible government can consider such a situation in the interest of its people. The history of dependence on oil in oil rich countries under domination is an experiment that no independent country is willing to repeat.

"Those hegemonic powers, who consider scientific and technological progress of independent and free nations as a challenge to their monopoly on these important instruments of power and who do not want to see such achievements in other countries, have misrepresented Iran's healthy and fully safeguarded technological endeavors in the nuclear field as pursuit of nuclear weapons. This is nothing but a propaganda ploy. The Islamic Republic of Iran is presenting in good faith its proposal for constructive interaction and a just dialogue.

"However, if some try to impose their will on the Iranian people through resort to a language of force and threat with Iran, we will reconsider our entire approach to the nuclear issue.

"Allow me, as the elected President of the Iranian people, to outline the other main elements of my country's initiative regarding the nuclear issue:
"1. The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its previously and repeatedly declared position that in accordance with our religious principles, pursuit of nuclear weapons is prohibited.

"2. The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that it is necessary to revitalize the NPT and create the above-mentioned ad-hoc committee so that it can combat nuclear weapons and abolish the apartheid in peaceful nuclear technology.

"3. Technically, the fuel cycle of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not different from that of other countries which have peaceful nuclear technology.

"Therefore, as a further confidence building measure and in order to provide the greatest degree of transparency, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to engage in serious partnership with private and public sectors of other countries in the implementation of uranium enrichment program in Iran. This represents the most far reaching step, outside all requirements of the NPT, being proposed by Iran as a further confidence building measure.

"4. In keeping with Iran's inalienable right to have access to a nuclear fuel cycle, continued interaction and technical and legal cooperation with the IAEA will be the centerpiece of our nuclear policy.

"Initiation and continuation of negotiations with other countries will be carried out in the context of Iran's interaction with the Agency.

"With this in mind, I have directed the relevant Iranian officials to compile the legal and technical details of Iran's nuclear approach, based on the following considerations:
"4.1. International precedence tells us that nuclear fuel- delivery contracts are unreliable and no legally binding international document or instrument exists to guarantee the delivery of nuclear fuel.

"On many occasions such bilateral contracts stopped altogether for political reasons. Therefore, the Islamic Republic of Iran, in its pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology, considers it within its legitimate rights to receive objective guarantees for uranium enrichment in the nuclear fuel cycle.

"4.2. In its negotiations with the EU3 ,Iran has tried in earnest to prove the solid and rightful foundations of its nuclear activity in the context of the NPT, and to establish mutual trust. The selection of our negotiating partners and the continuation of negotiations with the EU3 will be commensurate with the requirements of our cooperation with the Agency regarding non-diversion of the process of uranium enrichment to non-peaceful purposes in the framework of the provisions of the NPT. In this context, several proposals have been presented which can be considered in the context of negotiations. The Islamic Republic of Iran appreciates the positive contribution of South Africa and H.E. President Mbeki personally in the resolution of the nuclear issue and cognizant of South Africa's active role in the IAEA Board of Governors would welcome its active participation in the negotiations.

"4.3. The discriminatory approaches regarding the NPT that focuses on the obligations of state-parties and disregards their rights under the Treaty should be discontinued.

"As the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I assure you that my country will use everything in its power to contribute to global tranquility and peace based on the two maxims of spirituality and justice as well as the equal rights of all peoples and nations.

My country will interact and cooperate constructively with the international community to face the challenges before us.

"Dear Friends and Colleagues,
"From the beginning of time, humanity has longed for the day when justice, peace, equality and compassion envelop the world. All of us can contribute to the establishment of such a world. When that day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being who is heir to all prophets and pious men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace.

"O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace

source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...918-irna02.htm

Cynthetiq · 09-20-2006, 08:16 AM

roachboy, thanks for the text, I'm going to try to read it when I have a chance....

i must admit it was really annoying to be in traffic yesterday morning on 6th Avenue as that's where many protesters were standing... but i am grateful and glad that they can have the ability to speak their minds.

host · 09-20-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

It's very humorous that you didn't find any dissonance in your post, namely having #3 so close to your "Iraq folly" creation. You seem to have ignored that:

1. Mohammed Atta met with the Iraqis in Prague.
2. According to George Tenet (who was it that appointed him to head the CIA?) the Iraq-Al Qaeda link went back ten years.
3. Al Zarqawi ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan before relocating to Baghdad.
4. Abu Nidal spent time in Iraq.
5. Saddam paid families of suicide bombers.
6. Iraq was declared a state sponsor of terrorism in 1990.

<b>These were just some of the points I heard Dick Cheney bring up when attacked by Tim Russert a couple of weeks ago. Tim was so thoroughly outgunned by these facts he had to resort to hunting jokes. I'm sure there's a link to it somewhere.

In addition, there's always the Duelfer Report. It's only 1000 pages, so you could probably find it quoted in one of host's posts.</b>

Some of them ARE serving their country. Can you say the same? For the record, that "I'm showing patriotism by protesting" never convinced anyone.

Notice my tagline as well.

What has changed, Marv. You posted a similarly discredited argument about "Saddam had WMD", and....with enough effort....by saturating this board with an overwhelming litany of facts that persuaded that the opposite was true...
you stopped.

Marv, would all of the facts in the world, if they could be posted here, give you pause? Lord knows, I have tried.....and still....here you go, again !

Bill O'Rights · 09-20-2006, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

...would all of the facts in the world, if they could be posted here, give you pause? Lord knows, I have tried...

Yes, host. Yes you have.

Yo...Ustwo...why are you attempting to bury my question with statistical BS, that had absolutely nothing to do with my post? What for you be tryin' to obfuscate my point?

dc_dux · 09-20-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Yo...Ustwo...why are you attempting to bury my question with statistical BS, that had absolutely nothing to do with my post? What for you be tryin' to obfuscate my point?

Yo Yo...UStwo...while you're at it, I am still waiting for a clarification of how Carter is weakening the US.

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Yes, host. Yes you have.

Yo...Ustwo...why are you attempting to bury my question with statistical BS, that had absolutely nothing to do with my post? What for you be tryin' to obfuscate my point?

What was your point then Bill?

Statistics really had nothing to do with MY point.

aceventura3 · 09-20-2006, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

*If* this is being done without congressional oversite, then impeachment isn't enough anymore. I belive that imprisonment should be considered. And on top of that, I'm going to pay a black friend of mine to get the Bush twins pregnant.

The one thing I have always liked about this political board was that there was never any race based comments.

That aside - if you support peaceful means in resolving conflict, why do you want to "harm" the President in a manner not related to his actions as president? Can you reconcile that for us? Or is it that you just simply hate Bush?

Sun Tzu · 09-20-2006, 12:40 PM

Johnny Rotten I cant tell whether it is the link or my end that is creating problems to view the video.

This all seems to be pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, when its all put together pointing to a central theme. IMO it would be disastrous to take any action against Persia at this point; whether clandestine or not. For one, unless we are talking nuclear war the US doesn’t have the resources to expand its fighting. I say that because I have strong doubts whether we would have a “coalition”.

In line with Venezuela, Iran’s decision to put the dollar aside for the Euro really states they are serious about doing whatever it is they choose to do.

If the US restrains Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear capabilities, then the reality is they will eventually have weapons. Is a world with Iran being a nuclear member a better place? No. Would the situation be any better with going to war with Iran? Well if China decided to overlook its 800 billion oil deal with Iran for the trade arrangements it has with the US then possibly. Would China stay out of this? Would Russia stay out of this?
I think a global conflict is entirely possible from this situation.

I try and look at both sides of the issue. One of Sun Tzu’s valuable lessons is to look into the minds of the enemy to understand their choices in battle. Iran wants nuclear weapons. Why? It seems most world leaders (not India and Pakistan) understand adding more nuclear arsenal to the world’s collection is pointless since there is already enough to wipe us all out. Logical reasoning aside; is Iran taking the stance that if countries like the US and Israel have nuclear arsenals they have no business dictating who can or can’t have them.

Then one can look at the standpoint of Israel and Iran and state that Israel is not calling for Iran’s destruction. Its leaders aren’t denying things like the holocaust from happening. So why does Iran hate Israel? Through all the politics are reasons. Its obvious Iran’s leader doesn’t like Israel. It can’t be straight anti-Semitism; there are Iranian Jews in Iran living without persecution. One can look at this situation and take the stance “who care’s- they are the enemy it really doesn’t matter what the reasons are- destroy them; or to look into what fueling the situation. I don’t think we have the luxury of the first because I think escalating tensions with China is a big mistake.

Johnny Rotten · 09-20-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

If the US restrains Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear capabilities, then the reality is they will eventually have weapons. Is a world with Iran being a nuclear member a better place? No. Would the situation be any better with going to war with Iran? Well if China decided to overlook its 800 billion oil deal with Iran for the trade arrangements it has with the US then possibly. Would China stay out of this? Would Russia stay out of this?
I think a global conflict is entirely possible from this situation.

I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble viewing the video, because I value your input. I don't know offhand where it might be mirrored. I would try YouTube.

As it turns out, Isreal can't attack Iran without crossing over Iraqi airspace. Their fighter jets don't have the range to go around. It is my understanding that Iraqi airspace is essentially US military airspace. So the US military must explicitly authorize any third-party military personnel to cross Iraq's borders. That would mean a de facto declaration of war by the United States against Iran, as the US would be complicit in whatever actions Isreali forces took after crossing into Iran.

Quote:

I try and look at both sides of the issue. One of Sun Tzu’s valuable lessons is to look into the minds of the enemy to understand their choices in battle. Iran wants nuclear weapons. Why? It seems most world leaders (not India and Pakistan) understand adding more nuclear arsenal to the world’s collection is pointless since there is already enough to wipe us all out. Logical reasoning aside; is Iran taking the stance that if countries like the US and Israel have nuclear arsenals they have no business dictating who can or can’t have them.

According to the IAEA, Iran's enrichment is at 3.5%. Weapons-grade plutonium requires at least 90% enrichment. (I'm sorry, Mojo, I'm sticking to my guns until you provide supporting materials for your data, one element of which appears to have been debunked.)

I believe that if Iran is indeed enriching plutonium beyond known quantities, it intends to use it first and foremost as a bargaining chip. They don't want to lose over a million people to disease, radiation-induced cancer and starvation, as Iraq apparently did when the US government imposed food and medical sanctions in 1991. (Ironically, the Bush administration claims that, in this same time frame, Iraq was somehow amassing WMDs in sufficient quantities as to be a clear and present danger to the United States.)

Quote:

Then one can look at the standpoint of Israel and Iran and state that Israel is not calling for Iran’s destruction. Its leaders aren’t denying things like the holocaust from happening. So why does Iran hate Israel? Through all the politics are reasons. Its obvious Iran’s leader doesn’t like Israel. It can’t be straight anti-Semitism; there are Iranian Jews in Iran living without persecution. One can look at this situation and take the stance “who care’s- they are the enemy it really doesn’t matter what the reasons are- destroy them; or to look into what fueling the situation. I don’t think we have the luxury of the first because I think escalating tensions with China is a big mistake.

I believe their hostility towards Isreal stems from what it perceives as genocide in Palestine. That and the fact that the Arab world generally sees Isreal as an artificially created state, subsidized heavily by the West. I'm not prepared to debate that particular topic, but it strikes me that people have been arbitrarily creating and dividing nations since the concept was first introduced. The key difference here being that what is now Isreal was previously occupied by an established community.

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble viewing the video, because I value your input. I don't know offhand where it might be mirrored. I would try YouTube.

As it turns out, Isreal can't attack Iran without crossing over Iraqi airspace. Their fighter jets don't have the range to go around. It is my understanding that Iraqi airspace is essentially US military airspace. So the US military must explicitly authorize any third-party military personnel to cross Iraq's borders. That would mean a de facto declaration of war by the United States against Iran, as the US would be complicit in whatever actions Isreali forces took after crossing into Iran.

I would assume that Israel would have a few tanker jets to refuel their fighters without going over Iraqi airspace.

Quote:

I believe that if Iran is indeed enriching plutonium beyond known quantities, it intends to use it first and foremost as a bargaining chip. They don't want to lose over a million people to disease, radiation-induced cancer and starvation, as Iraq apparently did when the US government imposed food and medical sanctions in 1991. (Ironically, the Bush administration claims that, in this same time frame, Iraq was somehow amassing WMDs in sufficient quantities as to be a clear and present danger to the United States.)

ANY starvation and ummm radiation induced cancer (where did you pull that one out of) was NOT due to the sanctions but due to Iraq's corruption of the oil for food program and the willing accomplaces in the UN.

And 'food and medical' sanctions? Ummm I don't think we had sanctions on medicine and food.

I think you need to do a bit of reading beyond left wing propaganda sites if you think the above it true. I won't host this with a bunch of cut and paste links but I'd recommend google.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

That point about Iran's plutonium enrichment level is an important one, I think. It looks like they're nowhere near making weapons with it. It's too bad that they've used so much hostile propaganda that suggests otherwise.

Just a side note here too, you don't need plutonium to make an atomic bomb. Its much easier to make one out of U235.

Elphaba · 09-20-2006, 10:54 PM

Quote:

ANY starvation and ummm radiation induced cancer (where did you pull that one out of) was NOT due to the sanctions but due to Iraq's corruption of the oil for food program and the willing accomplaces in the UN.

u2, google "depleted uranium". You will find that it was delivered by the good ol' US of A in the first and current "Gulf Wars."

Yes, I insist that you do your own homework.

Sun Tzu · 09-21-2006, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

I believe their hostility towards Isreal stems from what it perceives as genocide in Palestine. That and the fact that the Arab world generally sees Isreal as an artificially created state, subsidized heavily by the West. I'm not prepared to debate that particular topic, but it strikes me that people have been arbitrarily creating and dividing nations since the concept was first introduced. The key difference here being that what is now Isreal was previously occupied by an established community.

It's my view it all spirals from here, but this is an area I try to avoid here in the forum. This debate has sparked some nasty arguments. Its been months since I've seen the last one, and thats probably for the better. I think this issue will ineveitably affect everyone.

Johnny Rotten · 09-21-2006, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

ANY starvation and ummm radiation induced cancer (where did you pull that one out of) was NOT due to the sanctions but due to Iraq's corruption of the oil for food program and the willing accomplaces in the UN.

And 'food and medical' sanctions? Ummm I don't think we had sanctions on medicine and food.

I think you need to do a bit of reading beyond left wing propaganda sites if you think the above it true. I won't host this with a bunch of cut and paste links but I'd recommend google.

Left-wing propaganda? The film is derived from a trip that Ramsey Clarke made to Iraq. You know, the guy who was the Attorney General under Lyndon B. Johnston? The film has traveled all over the world, I'm suprised you've never heard of it.

This information has been verified by the United Nations.

Here's an excerpt, which echoes the same information I have already provided.

Quote:

As of June 1997, the United Nations had verified that more than 1.2 million people in Iraq, including 750,000 children below the age of five, have died because of the scarcity of food and medicine caused by the economic sanctions that have been in place since August 6, 1990.

Since then, the conditions for the Iraqi people have certainly not improved. In 1998 UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, reported that since the imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq, the mortality rate among children under the age of five has increased by more than 40,000 deaths per year, due primarily to preventable causes such as diarrhea, pneumonia ,and malnutrition.

In addition, chronic malnutrition among children under five had reached 27.5 percent by this time. The report also stated that the mortality rate among children over the age of five has increased by more than 50,000 deaths per year due mainly to causes such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, liver, and kidney disease.

At the time of this report, approximately 250 people were dying every day in Iraq due to the effects of the economic sanctions. The UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs and the World Health Organization report that basic public health services are near total collapse in Iraq due to a desperate shortage of basic medicines, life-saving drugs, and other essential medical supplies. They also stated that up to fifty percent of the rural population has no access to clean water and that the waste water treatment facilities have stopped functioning in most urban areas, dramatically increasing the spread of disease.

From these reports, and many more I have not mentioned, it is clear that the UN sanctions against Iraq are in blatant violation of the Geneva Protocol 1, Article 54, which states that the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is strictly prohibited.

They were dying in droves, Ustwo. That is categorically undeniable.

Statement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued by Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston and signed by 265 bishops, 1999: "The comprehensive sanctions against Iraq have long since ceased to be a moral tool of diplomacy, because they have inflicted indiscriminate and unacceptable suffering on the Iraqi people. … Political and military sanctions remain acceptable; comprehensive economic sanctions are not. … We cannot turn a deaf ear to the suffering of the Iraqi people or a blind eye to the moral obtuseness of current U.S. policy."

New England Journal of Medicine editorial, April 24, 1997: "The Cuban and Iraqi instances make it abundantly clear that economic sanctions are, at their core, a war against public health. Our professional ethic demands the defense of public health. Thus, as physicians, we have a moral imperative to call for the end of sanctions. Having found the cause, we must act to remove it. Continuing to allow our reason to sleep will produce more monsters."

Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977):

(1) Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
(2) It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

There's plenty more where that came from. All you need is a search engine.

I recommend Google.

09-18-2006, 08:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	"‘We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now." According to a retired colonel, on CNN. Clip, with a brief summary: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/18/gardiner-iran/ Another quote: "The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a different state." I can't say anything about this right now because it would rapidly degenerate into an ugly rant. Suffice to say we have a big fucking problem right now.

09-18-2006, 08:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	Well, that is a very vague term: 'military operations.' And a retired colonel would not be my preferred source of information regarding current military operations. Anywhere. __________________ Bad Luck City

09-18-2006, 08:54 PM	#4 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I wouldn't doubt that America is doing counter-intelligence/insurgent work in Iran. They are a big part of problems with the current state of Iraq, not to mention we have that whole Nuclear stand off thing going on with them. I in no way see how "possible" clandestine activity, from a retired military officer, equates to reason of suspicion. First substantiate that the American military is acting, in any capacity, before calls for punishment beyond impeachment. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 09-18-2006 at 09:26 PM..

09-19-2006, 07:19 PM	#18 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	That point about Iran's plutonium enrichment level is an important one, I think. It looks like they're nowhere near making weapons with it. It's too bad that they've used so much hostile propaganda that suggests otherwise. __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

09-19-2006, 11:33 PM	#20 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	"Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082201447.html Where is that claim about the "531 meteric tons of yellowcake" from? I found nothing online about it. __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein

09-18-2006, 08:37 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If this is being done without congressional oversite, then impeachment isn't enough anymore. I belive that imprisonment should be considered. And on top of that, I'm going to pay a black friend of mine to get the Bush twins pregnant.

09-20-2006, 05:48 AM	#24 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Marv....as to your first three "facts", the evidence, particularly from the recent Phase II of the Senate Intelligence report, says otherwise. No reason to play that game with you. Among the conclusions of the Senate report: …Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support…Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. Its unfortunate that Bush is continuing to pressure the Sen Intel Committee from releasing the full report. Feel free to believe what Cheney tells you to justify their actions.. I would just say "You can put wings on a pig, but you don't make it an eagle." (credit to BIll Clinton) My fear is that it will be deja vu all over again with Iran,with the Adminstration creating or maniupuating intelligence to meet its objective. The Senate, showing its wisdom in a bi-paratisan way, passed a bill introduced by Harry Reid and Joe Biden, to at least put some safeguards in place to prevent a reoccurence of the "Iraq intelligence folly" (there I go again with "folly"). The Iran Intelligence Oversight Act will: -- Require an updated national intelligence estimate on Iran with an unclassified summary available to inform debate by Congress and the American people -- Require the President to report to Congress on his objectives regarding Iran and his strategy for achieving them -- Require the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on the current policies and practices for vetting and clearing statements of senior Administration officials that are drawn from intelligence; how significant misstatements of intelligence in public statements of senior public officials are identified, brought to the attention of any such officials, and corrected; and recommend any process improvements. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=67761 The bill was included in the Senate version of the '07 Defense Appropriations bill, but it is highly unlikely that Bush's buddies in the House will accept it in conference. Instead, the House will release reports with faulty intelligence as noted in #16 above. Not that it matters because Bush continues to threaten to veto the Defense Approp. bill unless it has the prisoner interrogation language that he so desperately wants in order to continue to vioalte the Geneva Convention. BTW, I was only being half serious about requirement family members of Congress to be "volunteered." We will have enough problems with many of the new volunteers. Someone mentioned in another thread about the number of people volunteering for the military. One reason is the number of waivers that are now being given, including dropping the requirement for a HS diploma, allowing a criminal record or a mental illness, accepting know skinhead aryan nation types and urban gang members, etc....but that is the subject for another thread. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-20-2006 at 07:21 AM..

09-20-2006, 08:16 AM	#26 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	roachboy, thanks for the text, I'm going to try to read it when I have a chance.... i must admit it was really annoying to be in traffic yesterday morning on 6th Avenue as that's where many protesters were standing... but i am grateful and glad that they can have the ability to speak their minds. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

09-20-2006, 12:40 PM	#32 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	Johnny Rotten I cant tell whether it is the link or my end that is creating problems to view the video. This all seems to be pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, when its all put together pointing to a central theme. IMO it would be disastrous to take any action against Persia at this point; whether clandestine or not. For one, unless we are talking nuclear war the US doesn’t have the resources to expand its fighting. I say that because I have strong doubts whether we would have a “coalition”. In line with Venezuela, Iran’s decision to put the dollar aside for the Euro really states they are serious about doing whatever it is they choose to do. If the US restrains Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear capabilities, then the reality is they will eventually have weapons. Is a world with Iran being a nuclear member a better place? No. Would the situation be any better with going to war with Iran? Well if China decided to overlook its 800 billion oil deal with Iran for the trade arrangements it has with the US then possibly. Would China stay out of this? Would Russia stay out of this? I think a global conflict is entirely possible from this situation. I try and look at both sides of the issue. One of Sun Tzu’s valuable lessons is to look into the minds of the enemy to understand their choices in battle. Iran wants nuclear weapons. Why? It seems most world leaders (not India and Pakistan) understand adding more nuclear arsenal to the world’s collection is pointless since there is already enough to wipe us all out. Logical reasoning aside; is Iran taking the stance that if countries like the US and Israel have nuclear arsenals they have no business dictating who can or can’t have them. Then one can look at the standpoint of Israel and Iran and state that Israel is not calling for Iran’s destruction. Its leaders aren’t denying things like the holocaust from happening. So why does Iran hate Israel? Through all the politics are reasons. Its obvious Iran’s leader doesn’t like Israel. It can’t be straight anti-Semitism; there are Iranian Jews in Iran living without persecution. One can look at this situation and take the stance “who care’s- they are the enemy it really doesn’t matter what the reasons are- destroy them; or to look into what fueling the situation. I don’t think we have the luxury of the first because I think escalating tensions with China is a big mistake. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*