Israel prepares to launch attack....

[Freethinker]

Israel has probably the best history of carrying out this kind of surgical strike effectively.

They knocked out Iraq's nuclear program with a similar strike and that defused a potentially nasty situation. Much to the relief of the rest of the world whether they admit it or not.

Considering the mad rhetoric coming out of Iran I don't blame them in the least. It seems like prudent self defense as far as I am concerned.

 

[cyberclark]

It's only a surgical strike if you don't happen to be standing under it. Any crap like that will totally polarize the mideast and there will all out war probably on 3 contentents!

 

[Colpy]

It's only a surgical strike if you don't happen to be standing under it. Any crap like that will totally polarize the mideast and there will all out war probably on 3 contentents!

Everybody will talk for a week about how terrible the Israelis are, then they will go back about their business as usual, breathing a deep sigh of relief.

Exactly as they did after the Israeli attack on Iraq.

 

[I think not]

Iran welcomes Russia uranium offer

But negotiator says countries have not reached agreement on enrichment

MOSCOW - Iran’s top nuclear negotiator said Wednesday that Tehran views Moscow’s offer to have Iran’s uranium enriched in Russia as a "positive" development but no agreement has been reached between the countries.

Chief negotiator Ali Larijani also reiterated Iran’s threat to renew enrichment activities if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council.

Moscow has proposed having Iran’s uranium enriched in Russia, then returned to Iran for use in the country’s reactors — a compromise that could provide more oversight and ease tensions with the United States and European Union over Iran’s nuclear program.

Haggling has continued over the specifics of the proposal, including Tehran’s proposal to have China involved in the Russian enrichment process.

After talks with Russian Security Council chief Igor Ivanov, which included discussion of the plan, Larijani told a news conference: “Our view of this offer is positive, and we are trying to bring the positions of the sides closer.”

“This plan can be perfected in the future, during further talks that will be held in February,” he said.

Larijani suggested it would take some time to work out details of Russia’s proposal. Some critics allege the Iranians are using the proposal to stall for time as Western diplomatic pressure on Tehran mounts over its alleged nuclear weapons program.

On Tuesday, Larijani and Ivanov said in a joint statement that Tehran’s nuclear standoff must be resolved by diplomatic efforts in the U.N. atomic watchdog agency.

Security Council referral looming?
The statement reflected Russia’s efforts to delay Iran’s referral to the U.N. Security Council and Moscow’s opposition to international sanctions against Tehran.

“Both sides expressed their desire to solve the issue in a diplomatic way within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Russia’s Security Council said after the two met.

Iran has warned that IAEA referral to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear ambitions would lead it to move forward with a full-scale uranium enrichment program, a possible precursor to making atomic weapons.

High-level diplomacy has intensified with little more than a week to go until the Feb. 2 meeting of the IAEA’s 35-nation board.

Prior to that session, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will attend an international conference in London on Jan. 31 focusing on Afghanistan, but department spokesman Sean McCormack said Rice is expected to use the meeting to have discussions with key nations on Iran’s nuclear program.

The New York Times reported that the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — Britain, France, Russia and China, in addition to the United States — as well as Germany would attend the meeting.

Push to end the standoff
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw urged Tehran on Tuesday to seriously consider Russia’s offer to enrich its uranium in an effort to end the standoff.

Straw also said in an interview with The Associated Press that he hoped the IAEA would refer the matter to the Security Council.

The West fears Iran wants to develop a nuclear bomb but Tehran says its intentions are peaceful and that it wants only civilian nuclear energy.

Iran removed IAEA seals from equipment Jan. 10, ending a 15-month moratorium, and announced it would restart experiments including what it described as small-scale enrichment. The move led negotiators Germany, Britain and France to call for the Feb. 2 emergency board session.

European countries believe they have enough votes to haul Iran before the Security Council but they want broad support including Russia, China and key developing nations.

In Washington, Rice said that “referral absolutely has to be made” on Feb. 2, while remaining vague on what action she thought the Security Council should take, and when.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11016639/

 

[cyberclark]

I stil coddle Allans view that the US have to curtail Irans' program because Iran have come up with a dirt cheap way of making yellowjacket that has made the US process expensive and redundent.

Its a very dangerous situations no matter how it's cut.

 

[cyberclark]

Paper this AM is lining up our future.

Klein, Lougheed(ATCO),Harris, Grey all saying how much more business we are going to get because Harper will "mend fences".

Justice Berger is saying the NWT is set up for multi billions of projects including the MacKenzie valley pipline if the native groups can get on board. What he isn't saying is Harper is not against pushing any groups aside including the natives in order to promote industry.

I'll dig out the old Fraser Institute membership and put it up. We can all keep track of the movers and shakers.

 

[I think not]

Time to Face Reality on Iran

At best, a military strike would set back Iran's program a few years, inflame public opinion there and unify the nation in its bid to go nuclear.

By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

Jan. 30, 2006 issue - The huffing and puffing in Washington is so strong these days, it could start a gale. High officials warn Iran not to continue work on its nuclear program. Politicians on both sides of the aisle firmly concur. Pundits bellow louder still. Everyone agrees that Iran must be stopped. But how? That's when the silence sets in. No one has a serious plan that has much chance of success.

There are those who claim to have a solution—American military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. For some this is a stand, taken in the full expectation that the policy will never be adopted. In the 1950s some Republicans wanted to outflank the Truman administration, and argued for a military rollback of the Soviet Union. Others genuinely believe it to be possible. But bombing is not a serious option.

At best a strike would set back Iran's program by a few years. But it would inflame public opinion there and unify the nation in its determination to go nuclear. It is a substantial country—with three times the population of Iraq, for example—that has a powerful sense of national pride. And Iran would have many ways of retaliating, especially with 140,000 American troops next door in Iraq.

Sanctions will not work. Iran is the world's second largest oil exporter, with tens of billions of dollars in surplus cash these days. If we have few sticks, we also have few carrots. It's probably worth offering a package of real benefits—mostly as a signal to the Iranian people that we want good relations with them in return for cooperation on nukes—but I have no illusions that it would be accepted. The current regime does not want good relations with the West. It knows that more trade, contact and collaboration only undermine its grip on its society.

American policy toward Iran needs a fundamental rethink. We have a worthy goal: trying to stop Tehran from building nuclear weapons. We have gone about this in a sensible way, using allies, multilateral organizations and international agreements to pressure Tehran. But the policy simply isn't going to work.

Washington and its allies need to come to grips with reality and switch course, coming up with a new set of goals and a path to attain them. Otherwise we risk not just failure, but a very public humiliation and the further erosion of our limited credibility—in Washington, the "West" and the "international community."

The United States should begin the construction of an alliance to contain Iran. Our goals should be to prevent or massively slow down the weaponization of Iran's nuclear program, and to frustrate its meddling in the region, support for terrorism and opposition to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is not a best-case outcome, but it has its virtues. The existence of a clear and present danger in Iran will keep the international community galvanized. Already, the Western alliance has been strengthened in response to Iran's belligerence, and cooperation with India, Russia and China seems a stronger possibility than ever before.

Threats usually have the effect of sobering up the neighborhood. If Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries see that they face a serious problem in Iran, they might recognize that they could use outside allies. American influence in the region could become stronger and be used to push for cooperation on other foreign-policy issues, as well as economic and political reform. Notice how the rise of China has Japan and India moving closer to the United States. The Soviet threat brought Western Europe closer to the United States. It's not inconceivable that a similar dynamic could work in the Middle East.

Properly handled, Iran's threat might even improve the situation in Iraq. One of the grave problems facing Iraq is the rampant and destabilizing Iranian influence in its politics and government. If Iran continues down a nuclear path, politicians in Iraq—of all stripes—will begin to view this as a threat to their national security. It's tough to say that Iran is just a friendly neighbor helping out if it is actively pursuing the military capacity to obliterate you.

This does not mean accepting a nuclear-armed Iran. Tehran is many years away from nuclear weapons. Its program is not that sophisticated, and moving to a serious weapons capability isn't that easy, particularly if there is a concerted global effort to slow it down. The regime in Iran is not stable and the fissures in Iran will only grow. Regime change, however, is not going to take place at our will and on our timetable. Outside forces can help. But we will slow change in Iran if we feed the feeling that America is humiliating it. Let us not believe one more time that people in a foreign country will welcome American bombs with sweets and flowers.

 

[jimmoyer]

Fareed Zakaria has been one of my favorite columnists
for a long time. There's another columnist very similar
to Fareed and it's Thomas Friedman of NYTimes, but
ever since the New York Times decided to make you pay to read their editorials online, I've stopped reading Tom Friedman.

Fareed Zakaria is of the same vein in much of his views.

 

[aeon]

Like i said many times, if usa-russia-india-pakistan-france-israel-china-north korean(thankx to donald rumsfeld) and so on, why iran couldnt have one?? if iran has nuclear weapons , means no other western country would invade them, so , i have a question for you all, when was the last time iran has attacked someone??

 

[Freethinker]

RE: Israel prepares to la

Aeon, your theory is that if one mad man has a gun, more madmen with guns doesn't matter?

The greater the proliferation of nuclear weapons the greater the risk. The more unstable the regime, the greater the risk.

North Korea and Iran represent respectively one completely mad individual with Nuclear weapons, and another in training, this is in no way good for anyone.

The current madman in charge of Iran is always ranting about wiping Israel off the map, what happens when he thinks he has gained that capability, does his own rhetoric lead him to acting, will his own ego demand that he back up his words? I don't want to find out. Do you?

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Israel prepares to la

Aeon, your theory is that if one mad man has a gun, more madmen with guns doesn't matter?

The greater the proliferation of nuclear weapons the greater the risk. The more unstable the regime, the greater the risk.

North Korea and Iran represent respectively one completely mad individual with Nuclear weapons, and another in training, this is in no way good for anyone.

The current madman in charge of Iran is always ranting about wiping Israel off the map, what happens when he thinks he has gained that capability, does his own rhetoric lead him to acting, will his own ego demand that he back up his words? I don't want to find out. Do you?

Again i say, when was the last time iran has ever attacked someone?? this is the 3rd time i ask this question, and nobody is able to answer.


If iraq would have had nuclear weapons , no invasion would have been done, so having nuclear weapons is just a compromise to avoid externel invasion, and iran has understood it very well.

If everyone else is allow to have nuclear weapons, then iran can too.


The iran leader talked about getting rid of zionist, the wiping israel off the map, was our media who wanted to take it this way, that was not the reality.


Try to find a direct quote, by the iran leader where he said exactly what you just said.

 

[Freethinker]

Re: RE: Israel prepares to la

Again i say, when was the last time iran has ever attacked someone?? this is the 3rd time i ask this question, and nobody is able to answer.


If iraq would have had nuclear weapons , no invasion would have been done, so having nuclear weapons is just a compromise to avoid externel invasion, and iran has understood it very well.

If everyone else is allow to have nuclear weapons, then iran can too.

The iran leader talked about getting rid of zionist, the wiping israel off the map, was our media who wanted to take it this way, that was not the reality.

Try to find a direct quote, by the iran leader where he said exactly what you just said.

Iran doesn't have the reach with conventional forces to attack their declared enemy, so your rhetoric about them not attacking anyone so far is empty. They won't have the reach until they have the weapons.

As far as the quote, how about Al Jazeera. To western for you?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Israel prepares to la

Again i say, when was the last time iran has ever attacked someone?? this is the 3rd time i ask this question, and nobody is able to answer.

Here's your answer.

The last time a suicide bomber from Hamas or Islamic Jihad blew up Israeli civilians was the last time Iran attacked somebody.

The last time either of these bunch of nuts fired rockets into Israel was the last time Iran attacked somebody.

Both these terror groups are closely aligned and heavily supported by Iran. Iran has been attacking Israel by proxy for years ans years.

Now imagine these loonies with nukes.

Israel has reasion to fear, and reason to act.

If iraq would have had nuclear weapons , no invasion would have been done, so having nuclear weapons is just a compromise to avoid externel invasion, and iran has understood it very well.

Right back at Ya. Who has attacked Iran? Excluding Saddam of Iraq, because the Yanks have eliminated that threat.

If everyone else is allow to have nuclear weapons, then iran can too.

This ain't cupcakes we're talking about here.

[

quote]

The iran leader talked about getting rid of zionist, the wiping israel off the map, was our media who wanted to take it this way, that was not the reality.

Try to find a direct quote, by the iran leader where he said exactly what you just said.

”Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.” – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, regarding Israel and the occupation of Palestine, at the World Without Zionism conference, 2005

 

[Curiosity]

Colpy

 

[Colpy]

Yes?

Sorry, WC, I think you left me a photo or link, but I can't access it.

 

[Curiosity]

LOL Colpy

It was a secret offer of marriage hehehe....

Actually it was only a little smilie with a thumbs up saying "Super"!

I guess you have one of those high functioning 'puters who keep the rif-raf out....

Anyway: SUPER !!! :wink:

 

[cyberclark]

I watched the news clip when it first broke on TV. Yes that is what he said and my thought was "oh shit!"

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Israel prepares to la

Here's your answer.

The last time a suicide bomber from Hamas or Islamic Jihad blew up Israeli civilians was the last time Iran attacked somebody.

The last time either of these bunch of nuts fired rockets into Israel was the last time Iran attacked somebody.

Speculation at this best, you have absotly no evidence that iran is behind palestinians attacks, actually we know for a fact that saudi arabia support palestinians terrorist groups, but who cares about saudi arabia, since they are great lobyist.

Both these terror groups are closely aligned and heavily supported by Iran. Iran has been attacking Israel by proxy for years ans years.

Now imagine these loonies with nukes.

Speculation my friend, otherwise proove it.

Israel has reasion to fear, and reason to act.

Yeah israel has the right to do whatever it please them(illegal bomb raid, illegal occupations etcc), and nobody in the world would do anything, and you see anything wrong in this.

”Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.” – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, regarding Israel and the occupation of Palestine, at the World Without Zionism conference, 2005

That is not a direct quote again, the leader of iran, talked about of getting rid of Zionist, which i totally agree with, zionist, and all the radical group that exist in the world are the problem, that includes, muslim, christians and jews.

 

[Colpy]

It is common knowledge that Islamic Jihad and Hamas are backed by Iran. It is not speculation. So Iran does attack by proxy.

And the President said the idea of elimination of the "occupying regime" was a wise idea.

Now, maybe you read the English language differently than I do, but that seems pretty clear to me.

I may be wrong, but I get the feeling you would be celebrating the day a mushroom cloud appeared over Tel Aviv.

 

[cyberclark]

I have a few Palasinian customers. In one shop, there is a cute cartoon on the wall.
The first picture is 3 guys on horses dressed in a desert Arab costume with sabers in the air, riding at the full charge saying "Jihad"

The next frame shows the same three going the other direction, swords raised looking over their sholders at tanks saying "Sheet!"

The point being, nothing.