Iran and Nuclear activities.
Discussion
This is all a bit worrying. Here's how I see it playing out, on the basis that they will not do enough to pacify the international community.
1) Sanctions will cripple the economy to the point of eventual compliance / revolt.
2) Israel will run out of patience and take matters into their own hands
I think it's such a shame as Iran is such a beautiful country, with one of the richest cultures anywhere and is been taken to the brink by a nutjob.
1) Sanctions will cripple the economy to the point of eventual compliance / revolt.
2) Israel will run out of patience and take matters into their own hands
I think it's such a shame as Iran is such a beautiful country, with one of the richest cultures anywhere and is been taken to the brink by a nutjob.
rocksteadyeddie said:
This is all a bit worrying. Here's how I see it playing out, on the basis that they will not do enough to pacify the international community.
1) Sanctions will cripple the economy to the point of eventual compliance / revolt.
2) Israel will run out of patience and take matters into their own hands
I think it's such a shame as Iran is such a beautiful country, with one of the richest cultures anywhere and is been taken to the brink by a nutjob.
I concur.1) Sanctions will cripple the economy to the point of eventual compliance / revolt.
2) Israel will run out of patience and take matters into their own hands
I think it's such a shame as Iran is such a beautiful country, with one of the richest cultures anywhere and is been taken to the brink by a nutjob.
This probably sounds a bit like some mad conspiracy theory, but bear with me...
A Middle Eastern country run by a semi dictator is publicised by The West as having access to or devlopment of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This quite suits the Middle Eastern country because it massages the ego and makes it more difficult for its neighbours to consider any kind of military or diplomatic action against it. The fact it doesn't really have any of those weapons isn't important.
Fuelled by this growing ego, it continues to posture away, liking the way it is looking all sullen and powerful. Sanctions won't matter because there are always ways around them for those who matter and hey, there's loads of oil and related pipeways around, anyway.
Then, one day, The West decides to take the whole masquerade a bit further and invade in the name of 'protection of democracy and World Peace'. The semi-dictator is removed, a puppet Government put in his place and some Western companies get pretty rich on rebuilding the whole country. And let's not forget the oil and pipelines...
I know it all sounds a bit far fetched and crazy...
A Middle Eastern country run by a semi dictator is publicised by The West as having access to or devlopment of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This quite suits the Middle Eastern country because it massages the ego and makes it more difficult for its neighbours to consider any kind of military or diplomatic action against it. The fact it doesn't really have any of those weapons isn't important.
Fuelled by this growing ego, it continues to posture away, liking the way it is looking all sullen and powerful. Sanctions won't matter because there are always ways around them for those who matter and hey, there's loads of oil and related pipeways around, anyway.
Then, one day, The West decides to take the whole masquerade a bit further and invade in the name of 'protection of democracy and World Peace'. The semi-dictator is removed, a puppet Government put in his place and some Western companies get pretty rich on rebuilding the whole country. And let's not forget the oil and pipelines...
I know it all sounds a bit far fetched and crazy...
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Sunday 27th September 12:31
To dismiss the problem ‘a nutjob’ encourages failing to understand the complexity of the situation. It’s akin to seeing the Second World War as the product of a single individual leading a nation into war with no reciprocal input from the population.
The Iranian situation is far more complex. To grasp the tensions between the various groups within Iran is difficult. The culture and history that forms people’s perceptions is vastly different to our own. To assume they think the same as us would be a huge mistake. There are different groups within Iran. They groups don’t even think the same as each other.
Try reading James Clavell’s book ‘Whirlwind’ it’s fictional, but draws a fairly accurate picture of some of the historic cultural tensions within Iran and the way various sections of their society think. It’s a much easier read for an interested lay reader than dry academic papers.
The Iranian situation is far more complex. To grasp the tensions between the various groups within Iran is difficult. The culture and history that forms people’s perceptions is vastly different to our own. To assume they think the same as us would be a huge mistake. There are different groups within Iran. They groups don’t even think the same as each other.
Try reading James Clavell’s book ‘Whirlwind’ it’s fictional, but draws a fairly accurate picture of some of the historic cultural tensions within Iran and the way various sections of their society think. It’s a much easier read for an interested lay reader than dry academic papers.
10 Pence Short said:
I know it all sounds a bit far fetched and crazy...
My own personal pet conspiriacy theory is that the Afghanistan conflict and the Iraq war were both considered favourable in part because it would allow western governments to learn/experience modern ME warfare and subsequently keep their respective armies in a battle-hardened state and that Afghanistan will become the new Northern Ireland as a real-world "training camp", giving us an important advantage in increasing the effectiveness of our troops should we have to invade/fight in any future ME battles. This is the reason that we'll stay in Afghanistan forever.
rocksteadyeddie said:
This is all a bit worrying. Here's how I see it playing out, on the basis that they will not do enough to pacify the international community.
1) Sanctions will cripple the economy to the point of eventual compliance / revolt.
2) Israel will run out of patience and take matters into their own hands
I think it's such a shame as Iran is such a beautiful country, with one of the richest cultures anywhere and is been taken to the brink by a nutjob.
I think it's such a shame as Iran is such a beautiful country, with one of the richest cultures anywhere and is been taken to the brink by a series of nutjobs.1) Sanctions will cripple the economy to the point of eventual compliance / revolt.
2) Israel will run out of patience and take matters into their own hands
I think it's such a shame as Iran is such a beautiful country, with one of the richest cultures anywhere and is been taken to the brink by a nutjob.
EFA
glazbagun said:
HRG. said:
Who gave us the right to say what weapons Iran may or may not develop?
We did; by winning the last World War and creating the UN to prevent future wars between nations. In theory.
k off.I can't see Iran backing down now, sanctions will merely cause additional friction.
HRG. said:
Who gave us the right to say what weapons Iran may or may not develop?
No one. And once you have them you can tell the rest of the world to get stuffed, ask North Korea.I don't understand why people are worried about Iran but no one bleats on about taking action against pakistan.
HRG. said:
glazbagun said:
HRG. said:
Who gave us the right to say what weapons Iran may or may not develop?
We did; by winning the last World War and creating the UN to prevent future wars between nations. In theory.k off.I can't see Iran backing down now, sanctions will merely cause additional friction.
nick heppinstall said:
HRG. said:
glazbagun said:
HRG. said:
Who gave us the right to say what weapons Iran may or may not develop?
We did; by winning the last World War and creating the UN to prevent future wars between nations. In theory.k off.I can't see Iran backing down now, sanctions will merely cause additional friction.
There are a few issues with the demonisation of Iran...they have a right to develop nuclear power which opens the door to the production of a weapons grade material coupled to their missile system programmes. Other states are far more advanced down the nuclear path...NK obviously & others...Serious lobbying & massaging has begun around the UN to soften up opposition for closing the beurocratic noose against Iran if they do not bend to western will.
....a wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Prolifera...
Looking at the states in the region regarding the treaty..
Three states—India, Israel, and pakistan have declined to sign the treaty. India and pakistan are confirmed nuclear powers, and Israel has a long-standing policy of deliberate ambiguity. These countries argue that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.
India and pakistan have publicly announced possession of nuclear weapons and have detonated nuclear devices in tests, India having first doing so in 1974 and pakistan following suit in 1998 in response to another Indian test. India haves enough fissile material for more than 150 warheads. pakistan reportedly has between 80 and 120 warheads according to the former head of its strategic arms division. The main reason India cites for not signing the NPT and for possessing nuclear weapons is that China is one of the "nuclear haves." India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognise the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."[27] China and India have a longstanding border dispute, including the border war in 1962.
Leaked intelligence asserts Israel had been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site in the Negev since 1958, and many nonproliferation analysts like David Albright estimate that Israel may have stockpiled between 100 to 200 warheads using the plutonium reprocessed from Dimona. The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of nuclear weapons, although this is now regarded as an open secret after Israeli low level nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu—later abducted and jailed by Israel—revealed the program to the British Sunday Times in 86.
In early March 2006, India and the United States finalized a deal, having critics in both countries, to provide India with US civilian nuclear technology. Under the deal India has committed to classify 14 of its 22 nuclear power plants as being for civilian use and to place them under IAEA safeguards. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA, welcomed the deal by calling India "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime."
In December 2006, United States Congress approved the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act that was cemented during President Bush's visit to India earlier in the year. The legislation allows for the transfer of civilian nuclear material to India. Despite its status outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India was granted these transactions on the basis of its clean proliferation record, and India's unusually high need for energy fueled by its rapid industrialization and a billion-plus population.
The NSG Guidelines currently rule out nuclear exports by all major suppliers to pakistan and Israel, with very narrow exceptions, since neither has full-scope IAEA safeguards (i.e. safeguards on all its nuclear activities). Attempts by pakistan to reach a similar agreement have been rebuffed by the United States and other NSG members. The argument put forth is that not only does pakistan lack the same energy requirements but that the track record of pakistan as a nuclear proliferator makes it impossible for it to have any sort of nuclear deal in the near future.
On September 18, 2009 the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Israel to open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection and adhere to the non-proliferation treaty as part of a resolution on "Israeli nuclear capabilities," which passed by a narrow margin of 49-45 with 16 abstentions. The chief Israeli delegate stated that "Israel will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution."
Russia, the Polish missile bargaining chip & US pressure to ramp up tougher `sanctions that bite` from other states trading with Iran..(Russia & others brought into the tactical loop) are handy votes in the UN when the sanctions circus switches to war drums as the Israel lobby work the old magic.
Update: Iran opens new site for inspections..27/09/09
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f...
Off topic...
As it happens...
There has been a fly in the ointment recently blotting the copybook of the American NPT reputation regarding a story that lay buried under the diet of hollywood glitz....a real can of worms for those with the time to follow a darn good story...basically a gagged FBI whistleblower flick singing like a budgie with allegations of bribery, blackmail, sex & the easing of nuclear secrets out the back door of the US onto the black market assisted by some big names in congress via Turkey who, she alleges, have set up shop selling goodies to the highest bidder.
http://amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/
http://current.com/1it6u4c
....a wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Prolifera...
Looking at the states in the region regarding the treaty..
Three states—India, Israel, and pakistan have declined to sign the treaty. India and pakistan are confirmed nuclear powers, and Israel has a long-standing policy of deliberate ambiguity. These countries argue that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.
India and pakistan have publicly announced possession of nuclear weapons and have detonated nuclear devices in tests, India having first doing so in 1974 and pakistan following suit in 1998 in response to another Indian test. India haves enough fissile material for more than 150 warheads. pakistan reportedly has between 80 and 120 warheads according to the former head of its strategic arms division. The main reason India cites for not signing the NPT and for possessing nuclear weapons is that China is one of the "nuclear haves." India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognise the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."[27] China and India have a longstanding border dispute, including the border war in 1962.
Leaked intelligence asserts Israel had been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site in the Negev since 1958, and many nonproliferation analysts like David Albright estimate that Israel may have stockpiled between 100 to 200 warheads using the plutonium reprocessed from Dimona. The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of nuclear weapons, although this is now regarded as an open secret after Israeli low level nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu—later abducted and jailed by Israel—revealed the program to the British Sunday Times in 86.
In early March 2006, India and the United States finalized a deal, having critics in both countries, to provide India with US civilian nuclear technology. Under the deal India has committed to classify 14 of its 22 nuclear power plants as being for civilian use and to place them under IAEA safeguards. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA, welcomed the deal by calling India "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime."
In December 2006, United States Congress approved the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act that was cemented during President Bush's visit to India earlier in the year. The legislation allows for the transfer of civilian nuclear material to India. Despite its status outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India was granted these transactions on the basis of its clean proliferation record, and India's unusually high need for energy fueled by its rapid industrialization and a billion-plus population.
The NSG Guidelines currently rule out nuclear exports by all major suppliers to pakistan and Israel, with very narrow exceptions, since neither has full-scope IAEA safeguards (i.e. safeguards on all its nuclear activities). Attempts by pakistan to reach a similar agreement have been rebuffed by the United States and other NSG members. The argument put forth is that not only does pakistan lack the same energy requirements but that the track record of pakistan as a nuclear proliferator makes it impossible for it to have any sort of nuclear deal in the near future.
On September 18, 2009 the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Israel to open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection and adhere to the non-proliferation treaty as part of a resolution on "Israeli nuclear capabilities," which passed by a narrow margin of 49-45 with 16 abstentions. The chief Israeli delegate stated that "Israel will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution."
Russia, the Polish missile bargaining chip & US pressure to ramp up tougher `sanctions that bite` from other states trading with Iran..(Russia & others brought into the tactical loop) are handy votes in the UN when the sanctions circus switches to war drums as the Israel lobby work the old magic.
Update: Iran opens new site for inspections..27/09/09
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f...
Off topic...
As it happens...
There has been a fly in the ointment recently blotting the copybook of the American NPT reputation regarding a story that lay buried under the diet of hollywood glitz....a real can of worms for those with the time to follow a darn good story...basically a gagged FBI whistleblower flick singing like a budgie with allegations of bribery, blackmail, sex & the easing of nuclear secrets out the back door of the US onto the black market assisted by some big names in congress via Turkey who, she alleges, have set up shop selling goodies to the highest bidder.
http://amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/
http://current.com/1it6u4c
Edited by FM on Monday 28th September 09:25
HRG. said:
glazbagun said:
HRG. said:
Who gave us the right to say what weapons Iran may or may not develop?
We did; by winning the last World War and creating the UN to prevent future wars between nations. In theory.k off.I can't see Iran backing down now, sanctions will merely cause additional friction.
Then nobody would ever fight a war for fear of the consequences and nobody would use the nuclear weapons.
If you believe that statement to be true then we should provide them to all governments immediately and end war for ever.
On the other hand you may consider that some governments (or their successor governments) might use them; in which case you must weigh competing rights. The right life for millions, perhaps all mankind, versus the right of one (or more) governments to possess them may be irreconcilable.
The situation in Iran is complex. The core belief of the majority of the population and certainly the government members is that everything they do is the will of god. They cannot make a mistake because god doesn’t permit things against his will. This life doesn’t matter, paradise can be guaranteed by dying whilst fighting for god. If the government caused the death of the entire population of Iran whilst fighting for Islam, they would be the first government ever to deliver eternal paradise for their entire population.
Iran has expressed intent to obliterate Israel from the face of the Earth. Israel is already a nuclear power and will presumably pre-empt the situation, or at least respond in kind. You and I may not like that situation but we must face the reality.
I would like to offer some words of wisdom, written by Churchill, who participated in the decision to develop and drop the first atomic weapons. Parallels can be drawn.
“Here is a line of milestones to disaster. Here is a catalogue of surrenders, at first when all was easy and later when things were harder, to the ever growing German power. But now at last was the end of British and French submission. Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the tens of millions of people. Here was the righteous cause deliberately and with a refinement of inverted artistry committed to mortal battle after its assets and advantages had been so improvidently squandered. Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.”
A member of my family, Sam was a prominent politician during the period. He believed all could be achieved by appeasement because he was so moved by the experiences of the First World War. In so doing he encouraged the disaster which befell. There was a time when the Fascist leadership wasn’t secure in its position. They took risks against the advice of the military within their own countries. Had we not appeased, the risk would have turned in to a political catastrophe for those dictators. Forces within their own countries were waiting for them to stumble and were still strong enough to have swept them from power. Our appeasement vindicated the decisions and consolidated their positions so firmly that only war could remove them.
The good intentions of people like my relative paved the road to disaster. He was rightly removed from the war Cabinet when Churchill became PM and sent to Spain as Ambassador. Privately he regretted his appeasement position in hindsight.
10 Pence Short said:
This probably sounds a bit like some mad conspiracy theory, but bear with me...
A Middle Eastern country run by a semi dictator is publicised by The West as having access to or devlopment of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This quite suits the Middle Eastern country because it massages the ego and makes it more difficult for its neighbours to consider any kind of military or diplomatic action against it. The fact it doesn't really have any of those weapons isn't important.
Fuelled by this growing ego, it continues to posture away, liking the way it is looking all sullen and powerful. Sanctions won't matter because there are always ways around them for those who matter and hey, there's loads of oil and related pipeways around, anyway.
Then, one day, The West decides to take the whole masquerade a bit further and invade in the name of 'protection of democracy and World Peace'. The semi-dictator is removed, a puppet Government put in his place and some Western companies get pretty rich on rebuilding the whole country. And let's not forget the oil and pipelines...
I know it all sounds a bit far fetched and crazy...
Where the hell did you get a crazy idea like that?! A Middle Eastern country run by a semi dictator is publicised by The West as having access to or devlopment of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This quite suits the Middle Eastern country because it massages the ego and makes it more difficult for its neighbours to consider any kind of military or diplomatic action against it. The fact it doesn't really have any of those weapons isn't important.
Fuelled by this growing ego, it continues to posture away, liking the way it is looking all sullen and powerful. Sanctions won't matter because there are always ways around them for those who matter and hey, there's loads of oil and related pipeways around, anyway.
Then, one day, The West decides to take the whole masquerade a bit further and invade in the name of 'protection of democracy and World Peace'. The semi-dictator is removed, a puppet Government put in his place and some Western companies get pretty rich on rebuilding the whole country. And let's not forget the oil and pipelines...
I know it all sounds a bit far fetched and crazy...
Fittster said:
HRG. said:
Who gave us the right to say what weapons Iran may or may not develop?
No one. And once you have them you can tell the rest of the world to get stuffed, ask North Korea.I don't understand why people are worried about Iran but no one bleats on about taking action against pakistan.
10 Pence Short said:
This probably sounds a bit like some mad conspiracy theory, but bear with me...
A Middle Eastern country run by a semi dictator is publicised by The West as having access to or devlopment of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This quite suits the Middle Eastern country because it massages the ego and makes it more difficult for its neighbours to consider any kind of military or diplomatic action against it. The fact it doesn't really have any of those weapons isn't important.
Fuelled by this growing ego, it continues to posture away, liking the way it is looking all sullen and powerful. Sanctions won't matter because there are always ways around them for those who matter and hey, there's loads of oil and related pipeways around, anyway.
Then, one day, The West decides to take the whole masquerade a bit further and invade in the name of 'protection of democracy and World Peace'. The semi-dictator is removed, a puppet Government put in his place and some Western companies get pretty rich on rebuilding the whole country. And let's not forget the oil and pipelines...
I know it all sounds a bit far fetched and crazy...
Sanctions could work. People don't seem to realize that for all of their oil, the Iranians purchase refined gasoline; they have not gotten around to making their own. I concur with the previous posters that the people seem fine, it is Dinnerjacket and his mob that need removing, followed closely by the "Supreme leadership". A Middle Eastern country run by a semi dictator is publicised by The West as having access to or devlopment of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This quite suits the Middle Eastern country because it massages the ego and makes it more difficult for its neighbours to consider any kind of military or diplomatic action against it. The fact it doesn't really have any of those weapons isn't important.
Fuelled by this growing ego, it continues to posture away, liking the way it is looking all sullen and powerful. Sanctions won't matter because there are always ways around them for those who matter and hey, there's loads of oil and related pipeways around, anyway.
Then, one day, The West decides to take the whole masquerade a bit further and invade in the name of 'protection of democracy and World Peace'. The semi-dictator is removed, a puppet Government put in his place and some Western companies get pretty rich on rebuilding the whole country. And let's not forget the oil and pipelines...
I know it all sounds a bit far fetched and crazy...
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Sunday 27th September 12:31
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff