Iran: Tightening the screw
As each month passes the moment draws closer. No one knows precisely when it will be, but the day is coming when either Iran abandons its uranium enrichment programme or it develops a nuclear bomb or it is attacked.
There is an urgency to events. The Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, said recently, "it is obvious Iran is getting close to acquiring nuclear capability that can be used in theory to create nuclear weapons". The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, said that Iran must be compelled to negotiate. It is the only way "to prevent a catastrophic alternative: the Iranian bomb or bombing Iran".
There is a new determination that the Iranian dance cannot continue. For years the ritual was the same. The West applied a little pressure. An Iranian negotiator hinted at compromise or talks, but nothing came of it and crucially Tehran gained time.
Now the European Union is expected to tighten the screw with a new sanctions package. European officials have described it as "by some way the most far-reaching sanctions adopted by the EU against any country". Considering the strong economic links that countries like Germany have with Iran it was thought agreeing to a tough package would be difficult. Officials have been pleasantly surprised as to how straightforward the talks were. "Now was the moment to send a very strong signal," said one.
The main target is the oil and gas sector, the backbone to the Iranian economy. The new sanctions will bar the "sale, supply or transfer of key equipment and technology for refining, liquefied natural gas, exploration and production".
New European investment in major sectors of the Iranian economy will be banned. More than 40 individuals and more than 50 companies will be blacklisted.
The ban on the sale of nuclear technology will be extended to dual-use goods that are also used in conventional weapons.
Any financial transfer from Europe to Iran above 10,000 euros will require notification with national authorities. Iranian banks will be prevented from setting up new branches in Europe.
There is the possibility that ships suspected of being involved in illegal activities will be stopped at sea.
Now the EU has chosen unilaterally to go further than the UN resolution of 9 June. It follows action taken by Washington against the Iranian energy sector.
So will it work? There is not much optimism out there, but there is agreement that serious sanctions have to be tried. The CIA director Leon Panetta says it could be a mere two years before Iran could develop a nuclear warhead. But on the key question of whether they can be dissuaded he is doubtful. "Will it deter them from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability? Probably not," he concludes. Sanctions rarely bend the will of authoritarian regimes.
Many regimes might choose to compromise. The Iranian regime is still steeped in the mindset of revolution. It thrives on perceived plots. When under pressure they play the victim, arguing that outsiders are set on destroying the Islamic Revolution.
There are signs, however, that the squeeze may be hurting.
Tehran's ability to ship goods has been significantly reduced because Western insurance companies, under pressure from the US, won't insure Iranian shippers. Without insurance Iranian-flagged ships face problems using foreign ports. Lloyds has stopped underwriting gasoline exports to Iran.
Iran lacks refining capacity and is dependent on imports for 40% of its fuel needs. The United States has passed a law that authorises sanctions on "any entity that provides or helps Iran obtain refined petroleum, including supplies, shippers, banks, insurance and reinsurance companies..." The regime would fear the fall-out of petrol shortages.
There are reports that work on prestigious projects like the South Pars gas field is slowing without the relevant technology.
The International Atomic Energy Authority says that "longer term the development of (Iran's) oil and gas industry will clearly be adversely affected".
However, Iran still has access to Chinese technology. It may not be of the same quality as the Europeans provide but it can fill many of the gaps.
Already, and on the eve of the EU moves, there are hints that the Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili might offer to talk as early as September. That is what the Europeans want, but they will be wary of being drawn into another inconclusive round of meetings. The bottom line for the international community is that Iran stops uranium enrichment.
As always it is difficult to read the Iranian leadership. At the same time as there are signals of new talks, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has warned the EU against imposing unilateral sanctions. He said Tehran would react swiftly and cause remorse if its ships or planes were intercepted. He also appeared to be mocking his critics by saying "are you helpless, do you fear one Iranian atomic bomb?"
For the international community sanctions that target Iran's key energy sector are one of their best cards to play. Neither China nor Russia has joined them in this. If these sanctions fail then the Europeans might ratchet them up in six months' time. In the United States there are those who are talking of developing an "economic warfare strategy".
Others like the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates are quietly letting it be known "we cannot live with a nuclear Iran". Reports from Washington suggest that the policy of accepting and then containing a nuclear Iran is losing its appeal.
Much now rides on the slow choke of sanctions.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~01~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Did not see anyone wishing to bomb Pakistan when it got nuclear bombs. Iran has never provoked a war. It has not any wishes to attack anyone but rather is constly menaced. Itis legitimate to seek nuclear technology. Pakistan on the other hand is the proper definition of a rogue state, yet some were really happy with it becoming nuclear power. Whatever.
Complain about this comment
"Others like the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates are quietly letting it be known "we cannot live with a nuclear Iran"."
...and Israel will not live with a nuclear Iran. It seems to be a question of when not if they will act. Then things will really get ugly.
Complain about this comment
As EU citizen I beg the EU to wake up and stop following USA policy which is a road to destruction.
John
Complain about this comment
"""Now the European Union is expected to tighten the screw with a new sanctions package. European officials have described it as "by some way the most far-reaching sanctions adopted by the EU against any country"."""
Or in other words, Europeans are experts at hitting their own interests worldwide. And then they expect to get out of the crisis.
"""The main target is the oil and gas sector, the backbone to the Iranian economy. The new sanctions will bar the "sale, supply or transfer of key equipment and technology for refining, liquefied natural gas, exploration and production"."""
What happened? Iran wants to seel to China and India or something? Unacceptable. Inhuman! Crime against humanity! Nuke them now!
"""Sanctions rarely bend the will of authoritarian regimes."""
Yes this is true. Indeed the bomb will be useless for Iran. Regimes like the US one are difficult to be convinced to change path.
"""The Iranian regime is still steeped in the mindset of revolution. It thrives on perceived plots."""
No of course not, there is no plot! No absolutely no plot! No do not insist! No plot, really no plot! No no no no plot!
"""Tehran's ability to ship goods has been significantly reduced because Western insurance companies, under pressure from the US, won't insure Iranian shippers. Without insurance Iranian-flagged ships face problems using foreign ports. Lloyds has stopped underwriting gasoline exports to Iran."""
Well that is the whole issue afterall. Find an excuse to create a wall.
""Iran lacks refining capacity and is dependent on imports for 40% of its fuel needs."""
So nobody told us. Who is the supplier of fuel and technology?
"""The United States has passed a law that authorises sanctions on "any entity that provides or helps Iran obtain refined petroleum, including supplies, shippers, banks, insurance and reinsurance companies..." The regime would fear the fall-out of petrol shortages."""
Eee? What about petroleum?
"""There are reports that work on prestigious projects like the South Pars gas field is slowing without the relevant technology."""
Evidently! That is the idea!
"""However, Iran still has access to Chinese technology."""
A! So it is the Chinese. Why then attack Iran and not China? Seems that US hawks have smaller betweenfeetballs than they really advertise.
"""The bottom line for the international community is that Iran stops uranium enrichment."""
Oh no no no. What international community? No international community there. The bulk of the world has absolutely no problem on Iran's wishes to become a nuclear power. That is the problem only of a few leaderships among them the most rogue nation in the world, US.
"""He also appeared to be mocking his critics by saying "are you helpless, do you fear one Iranian atomic bomb?"""
Eheheh... look, European leaders become the subject of ridicule. So low they have fallen. Are they searching for the bottom?
"""For the international community sanctions that target Iran's key energy sector are one of their best cards to play. Neither China nor Russia has joined them in this."""
What international community? Russia is not in this, nor is China. Does US and a couple of slave countries consist of "international community"?
"""In the United States there are those who are talking of developing an "economic warfare strategy"."""
Against whom? Iran? Or China, India and the EU?
"""Others like the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates are quietly letting it be known "we cannot live with a nuclear Iran"."""
Pffffffff Saudi Arabia and UAE are fake countries led by "makakos" that dance around on their trees on US/British payroll to sell oil at pre-defined prices. Their opinion is of absolutely no interest to the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
Pffffffff Saudi Arabia and UAE are fake countries led by "makakos" that dance around on their trees on US/British payroll to sell oil at pre-defined prices. Their opinion is of absolutely no interest to the rest of the world.
Agreed. And agreed with John.
What EU needs, is to give Iran some relaxation, say something like "Get Nuclear power for positive purposes, let us supply the equipment for it." Instead of a Western movie style dialogue like "Here's the gun on your head, either fire at us or die." That's not going to help anyone.
Regards.
Complain about this comment
#5 "What EU needs, is to give Iran some relaxation, say something like "Get Nuclear power for positive purposes, let us supply the equipment for it." "
I believe they tried that and for some time as well. Iran said it was an affront to their national sovereignty/pride and refused to play ball.
Complain about this comment
Dont you know the reason Mr. Nik? Pakistan never interfered with Israel, but Iran did. There is no way forward for anyone who move against kingmakers,i.e, corporates or zionists. Iran moved against both and this is the outcome! When Gaddafi of Libya was ready to salute BP, every charge against Libya was dropped! Ordinary people all over the world are just pawns in the game!
Complain about this comment
7. At 11:08am on 26 Jul 2010, neethiman wrote:
"""Dont you know the reason Mr. Nik? Pakistan never interfered with Israel, but Iran did."""
And so did Israel with Iran. It takes two to tango. What Iran minds mostly is the interference of Israel, a country constructed since the beggining as a western imbed into Middle East, into every single country of the Middle East. Iraq spoke against it, Syria too. Saudis and Turks are US doggies so they do not mind that much, while Egypt is led by US imposed dictator Mumbarak (now preparing his deathbed by leaving power to his son or some other close political/military ally).
What is funny is that Iran had been the most progressive and democratic country of the Middle East but British and Americans did not like it. They assasinated Iranian politicians they brought the medievalist Sah and thus they themselves pushed a part of the Iranian society to islamists themselves (British and Americans) had cultivated inside the country much as they have cultivated on many other countries of the area (Afganistan for example?). The idea was to take a huge country and a "dangerous" (since the only true big nation of the area) country out of the international economic game: Iran must not export its oil and gas suppliers to either Europe or India or China but only at the rate that US defines.
"""When Gaddafi of Libya was ready to salute BP, every charge against Libya was dropped! Ordinary people all over the world are just pawns in the game!"""
There you go. See how I am proved by parallel events elsewhere? Well it is the same for Iran too.
Complain about this comment
Iran is currently a member of the NPT and must fulfil its obligations and allow IAEA inspectors unconditional access to its nuclear program and military facilities without hindrance or excuses.Because the International communities suspects Iran's Nuclear Enrichment programs is associated with developing Nuclear weapons and its secret procument of associated "Triggers and Payloads" in the black market has cause concern for the International community.
Until Iran decides to cooperate fully with its obligations under the NPT
treaty and ratify additional protocol required,it will be isolated by the International community.
The world does not want a war in the Middle East.Attacking Iran for non compliance as a member of the NPT will be a grave mistake by the US.If Iran does not cooperate with its NPT obligations,it will not receive any assistance with its Nuclear Program.If Iran is capable of striking out on its own with its Nuclear Programs to built its own Nuclear Power Plant without the help from the West,Goodluck and Goodbye.
Complain about this comment
5. At 10:34am on 26 Jul 2010, Fwd079 wrote:
"""What EU needs, is to give Iran some relaxation, say something like "Get Nuclear power for positive purposes, let us supply the equipment for it."""
Fdw079, Iran is a unique country. First of all, it is the only Middle Eastern country with real history outside the holy book: these people are the Persians, people at the foremost of human civilisation. Iran, being the only country not heavily colonised by a European power (only interfered by Britain when it was already installed in the Middle East) and on the basis of its progressive shiite population was the only Middle Eastern & muslim country that could easily follow the pace of education and industrialisation along the west. Based on lands with enormous amounts of ressources among which oil and gas feature high up in the list, they were able into transforming them in a country 10 times richer than all Middle Eastern countries together. That equals a huge geopolitical danger. None wants so. Not even Russia that finds it quite convenient to avoid a potential serious competitor in the energy market (yet if Russia can have a link to Iran it can create a block against the US controlled Saudis and UAE...).
Iran was and is the key country in the Middle East for the simple reason that it is not all about oil & gas. Above all you have the traderoutes. Iran controls a part of the gulf. The world's east-west trade can pass from Iran and end up in Caucasus and from there to Europe. You just cannot imagine the possibilities there. There is much more at stake than just the energy issue.
All the rest of the discussion on nuclear is just a pretext and in a sense even the current Iranian regime is knowingly/unconsciously/forced (pick your choice there) playing the US plan full time. As an Israeli general said: "there is nothing better than having Ahmadinedjad in Iran's presidency" implying that a more co-operative president would actually be more dangerous. Quite revealing!
Complain about this comment
Re9: Harris. Were you so resolute for the case of Pakistan or Israel getting the nuclear bomb?
Complain about this comment
Poor Iran, all they want is the most devastating weapon yet invented and everyone is getting all antsy about it.
Complain about this comment
This is where my high ideas that all people should have access to equal technology comes to play. Why should not Iran and everyone else have access to nukes? What's wrong with it? If we have it and its good enough for us then let everyone else have it also.
The same goes for drugs in sports, why try and stop it? Let people used it and watch them run faster to point of spontenious combustion if need be!
The same for Iran let them have nukes and let Israel also come clean that they have a few also (suppy some to the Saudis for good messure) and if they don't like eachother then let then nuke eachother? Why try to stop them?:)
Complain about this comment
Re Nik @11
Pakistan and India both attain Nuclear capabilities in the 70s before the formation of the NPT.They were isolated by the west and not allow to join the NPT for secretly developing Nuclear Weapons and testing them.They were never capable of building their Nuclear Power Plant.The Technology for Nuclear Power Plant is more complex than building a nuclear bomb.Pakistan requires Nuclear Energy and is unable to build its own Nuclear power plant without the assistance of China and approval of the NSG.
The US has isolate Iran because of its hostile policy, its interference in Iraq and Afganistan,its support for terror groups(Hamas and Hezbolla),its violations of Human rights to its own citizens and American tourists kidnap at the borders.Iran's refusal to behave with diplomacy in accordance with other civilised nation nations considering its culture and History are the reasons for its isolations and sanctions imposed.
Complain about this comment
@9. At 11:29am on 26 Jul 2010, harris
Ohh Harris such an idealist! But he either doesn't know or he doesn't want to tell us that countries with nukes as part of the NPT deal should already given them up.
You see NPT has two part to it, one we give up nukes in return for other countries not to develop and build them.
We (and neither the other 4, official ones at least) have scrapped our nukes, so it looks a bit one sided to expect the others to keep their part of the deal when we don't keep our:)
Complain about this comment
If Iran was somewhere far far away from Israel, No one would have had a problem.
And the writer seems much much biased for not mentioning Israel's concerns at all. The article is Foxish and I recommend Mr. Hewitt to try and find a spot with Fox news, am sure he will find many people with similar view point (a completely obstructed one) over there.
Complain about this comment
Re post 12 and 13
Iran is capable of building Nukes since it has succeed in enrichment to 20%.If Iran decides to build Nuclear Weapons because other countries have them then its Nuclear Programs is not peaceful and will not be able to further its Nuclear capabilities under the assistance of the NPT.Asking other countries to disarm their Nukes as a conditions for Iran to stop developing Nuclear Weapons would suggest it has the right to have Nukes.This will only allow the western countries the excuse to disarm their Nukes on Iranian soil.Not a clever argument for not fulfilling its obligations with the NPT.Proliferation begets Proliferation.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nik : " What international community? Russia is not in this"
Oh yee, it is: read carefully pres. Medvedev's statement.
Russia is next door to Islamic Republic of Iran.
She has quite a few (growing) problems with her own Islamic terrorists.
So she's getting a religion. :)
Complain about this comment
'Saudi Arabia and UAE are fake countries led by "makakos" that dance around on their trees'
So, pray, where is mighty Greece getting its oil from?
Russia? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Complain about this comment
No one knows precisely when it will be, but the day is coming when Iran has so many allies (including China, probably Russia and a huge piece of South America), such blatant access to her own oil (without stealing that of others) that Israel will take advantage of the brand new American Resolution 1553:
111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. RES. 1553
Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.
The world has seen Iran bend over backwards, do somersaults and handstands to please the demands of the western world (i.e. The united States of America); the world has read the several International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports saying that Iran did not have and was not developing a nuclear program. If she is doing so now, who could blame her?
For years the west tried to undercut the Iranian Government; for years it sanctioned; then, it tried the colourful "GREEN" revolution, using Twitter.
Iran proved unshakeable, stable.
Now the European Union is expected to apply "the most far-reaching sanctions adopted by the EU against any country". Imagine a war, another war, for the oil and gas sector, the backbone to the Iranian economy, the Iraq economy and the Afghanistan economy. Imagine if the power was on the other foot: Imagine Iran
- issuing sanctions that would bar the United States from "sale, supply or transfer of key equipment and technology for refining, liquefied natural gas, exploration and production",
- prohibiting new European investment in major sectors of the United States,
- banning the sale of nuclear technology, extended to dual-use goods that are also used in conventional weapons.
Imagine the reaction of the United States! The United States would've bombed Iran - probably using depleted uranium and white phosphorous - so that future generations would die of mutation and cancer, as is happening in Iraq.
This pre-war scenario has been oh so carefully orchestrated, as carefully orchestrated as the attack on Iraq, but the United knows it can get away with anything, especially when most of the world's attention is rivetted to those useless 91,000 "secret" documents related to the Afghanistan War.
So will it work?
There will be war.
War is what the Americans need to get out of trillion-dollar debt; WW2 was used by Roosevelt to get the US out of its last severe depression - nothing like a long, good-ole war to get everyone working and simultaneously decrease the surplus population.
Many regimes might choose to compromise. The Iranian regime is still steeped in the mindset of revolution, OR is the United States of America that is still stepped in the minset of imperialism and endless war? Could the American economy survive without war? What on earth would she do with all those returning soldiers, returning to what is already high unemployment, and returning with guns?
The International Atomic Energy Authority says that "longer term the development of (Iran's) oil and gas industry will clearly be adversely affected". So what is Iran supposed to do? You can bet that Iran will not be the first to drop a bomb; Iran has never gone to war with any of her neighbors, has never invaded, has shown no imperialistic designs.
As always it is difficult to read the Iranian leadership. Imagine how difficult (try impossible) it is for the Iranian leadership to read the American leadership, except in its ruthless imperialim. Israel has already built up its presence in the persian Gulf; the United States is carrying war games a stone's throw from China. Why is the world not reacting to these provocations against Iran?
Soon, it will be too late.
The bombs will fly and people will die.
Complain about this comment
"They assasinated Iranian politicians they brought the medievalist Sah"
Shah Reza Pahlavi was one of the most progressived rulers in the Middle East.
He's the one who almost succeded in taking Iran out of Dark Ages and into a modern age.
That's why he was toppled by the likes of ayatollah Khomeini.
[obviously a friend of Greek Orthodox Christians; just like Khamenei. ;)]
Complain about this comment
I hope that EU countries will really impose sanctions on the regime in Iran. This is the the right step in the right directions. It would have been better if all EU countries had cut the diplomatic relations with those rulers who violate the basic rights of their own people to rmains one more day in power.
Complain about this comment
"We will support and defend any thug, any dictator, any rouge nation, any unsavory regime and any terrorist oufit as long as we think they could do some harm to the United States, or at least cause problems for it"
(European Socialist Progressive 'useful idiots')
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'four legs good, two legs b-a-a-a-a-a-d!"
Complain about this comment
There is a new determination that the Iranian dance cannot continue. For years the ritual was the same. The West applied a little pressure. An Iranian negotiator hinted at compromise or talks, but nothing came of it and crucially Tehran gained time.
Kind of reminds me of what I read about the feeble protests Britain and France made everytime Schicklgruber and co violated another international treaty. Instead of doing what they were treaty bound to do (ie interfere), they did nothing... except talk. We refer to it as 'appeasement' today.
But fair is fair, Chamberlain also took measures for the defence of Britain, and thus also did something positive which puts him ahead of the unelected clowns Barroso and Rompuy who serve no purpose whatsoever except to overrule national democracy which they apparently hate.
16.Mehtab wrote: If Iran was somewhere far far away from Israel, No one would have had a problem.
And the writer seems much much biased for not mentioning Israel's concerns at all. The article is Foxish and I recommend Mr. Hewitt to try and find a spot with Fox news, am sure he will find many people with similar view point (a completely obstructed one) over there.
Fox news is no more biased than ABC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC. The difference being, the latter four take their cues from the DNC (Democrat National Committee) and the former does not.
And Fox is certainly less biased than Iran's state TV which only brings you the 'news' dictator Khamenei and his errand boy Ahmadinejad want people there to know.
Complain about this comment
Why do ayatollahs and their factotum Ahmedinnerjacket have to ration gasoline in Iran?
Because rather than speding money on refineries they've been spending it on thousands of cetrifuges to enrich uranium-235 to the "weapon grade".
Because Iran, a country sitting on a veritable sea of oil allegedly needs nuclear energy to light up the Dark Age countryside. :-))))))))))))
Complain about this comment
The sanctions are much too little, much too late. Medvedev changed his position on sanctions because he was presented with incontrovertable evidence that Russian scientists were working to assist Iran in building nuclear weapons. It is not clear whether these scientists were working for agencies of the Russian government without Medvedev's knowledge or were freelancing but it hardly matters.
The target of Iranian nuclear weapons will not be Israel but the United States. The delivery system will be by stowing them aboard third country cargo ships or shipping them in pieces smuggling them into the US and assembling them here. The US is the great satan that stands in the way of the restoration of the Persian caliphate empire the Iranians want to recreate. America is for many reasons the main obstacle to that goal as the Iranian government sees it.
The only viable way to stop Iran is through the use of direct military force. Unfortunately, by waiting this long, the US has made the task far more difficult as the components for making weapons have not only advanced but been spread far and wide within Iran and possibly to neighboring countries like Lebanon and even Syria. The extent of destruction the US will have to wreak to be certain it has eliminated the threat and the number of innocent people who will die will be infinitely greater than had the problem been nipped in the bud. It is the same mistake the US made with North Korea, the same mistake Europe made with Nazi Germany. It looks like we have not learned the lessons of history and are forced to repeat them. The alternative to a thorough pre-emptive strike is to continue to play this futile game of sanctions and negotiations and wait for the day when Iran burns down American cities. What will happen in the aftermath of that?
Complain about this comment
Benefactor wrote:
Poor Iran, all they want is the most devastating weapon yet invented and everyone is getting all antsy about it.
Nor really. If senile ayatollahs want nuclear weapons badly enough, sombody will eventually take pity on them and send them some.
Free of charge. By a reliable express air delivery service:
such as IAF or USAF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TOMAHAWK" - "when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight."
(this message brought to you by the good people of Boeing Corporation)
Complain about this comment
"However, Iran still has access to Chinese technology. It may not be of the same quality as the Europeans provide but it can fill many of the gaps."Please give me a explain,how do you know it and show us the evidence
Complain about this comment
I agree with Nik that Iran is a very unique place... People need to understand that the Iranians are very different to the many other peoples of the area, Iran is by far and away the most complex Muslim society in the world and you need to separate the government from the people.
From my experience the majority of the people of Iran are well educated, well read, cultured, modern thinking people who want to be part of the international community and despite our media portrayal really like the west, they also have very progressive human rights and feminist movements. To understand Iran which is a very young country in terms of age of the population people need to read a book like Iranian Rappers and Persian porn and hear the stories I have of Iranians and their double lives where they conform to theocratic society in public but party, drink alcohol etc in private.
The problem however lays in the fact that is the country is run by a load of crazy Islamist thugs who can not have control of nuclear weapons. I worry like others that sanctions will target the people and that war could destabilise the Middle East however a big decision has to be made one way or the other before its too late of whether we can live with a nuclear Iran. I believe we can not because of their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah and other terror organisations who they could supply these weapons too and because of there Islamist martyr ideologies would mean they have no fear of using them.
My hope is the government can be toppled from within and although as everyone saw from the elections last year that there is a massive anti-government movement although I am not sure it has the strength or the power to change the regime yet. I do believe the Iran issue is the most important issue of our time, a progressive democratic secular Iran would be amazing for the world and region. Iran may just be the ones that finally enlighten the Islamic world and bring it into the 21st century, where as a nuclear Iran could do just the opposite and plunge the region into nuclear annihilation.
Complain about this comment
you are wrong
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
26. At 1:33pm on 26 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
27. At 1:39pm on 26 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Oh with views like these I do not know where to start.
Marcus, Russians negativity towards Iran is simply showing their will to let things go on that way and take out Iran as a potent competitor in the oil & gas market. Thus their interests are not that far from the interests of Americans who simply wish to maintain Iran isolated to create a barricade forbidding the normal flow of energy and products between East and West and protect their pUmping (u=i) businesses as mafia-mediators in that trade. Americans simply wish to tax on every major trade occuring on the planet and that is what they wish to maintain by keeping Iran barricaded. In that sense, Ahmadinedjad is the best thing that can happen for US politics and in fact they would hate to have another type of politicians who would say, "ok we stop the nuclear and we go on wind and solar: can we sell our petrol now to Europeans in euros, Indians in rupees & Chinese in yuan?". In that scenario US would simply nuke Iran out. There is nothing considered as more criminal for the US than trade without their consent.
The stories about any Iranian chalifate are just whatever. Iranians are shiite and they are hated by all sunni muslims that consider them heretics of the worst kind. Shiites and sunnis are killing each other all over the world they are in contact. Iranians cannot prepresent other than themselves. They are not sunnis, not Arabs, they are shiite Persians. They are already a large country and a populous nation that needs not really expand to be rich and powerful - afterall the last time they made an offensive war it must had been back in the 600s and the last Eastern Roman - Sassanid Persian war. In the 20th century they have been viciously attacked by US-supported Saddam and suffered for that. They have never attacked themselves anywhere (and practically they do not need to attack).
Now Marcus, on the one hand you call for a retraction of US from much of the world and a stop in its effort to try to be the world's police (not exact, it is the world's pUmp) and on the other you just call for attacks on developing countries. Really whatever.
Again I underline this: the islamic revolution in Iran was actually 100% according to the US plan to maintain Iran largely out of the world's energy map and in this case, Ahmadinedjad being in the presidency is not exactly the worst thing that happened for US but actually a very much beneficial thingie. Stop thinking linearly and start thinking laterally.
Complain about this comment
I have read BBC for many years as I thought it had been comparatively objective.
But the moderator team is hundred percent subjective.
Discussion is pointless since one sided discussion is no discussion.
Letting house-rules breaking posts in and censoring plain comments is not of good will.
It is now my opinion that HYS is completely pointless (unless it tries to make it's own points through ridiculous moderation)
Complain about this comment
Others like the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates are quietly letting it be known "we cannot live with a nuclear Iran"
Then the Saudis and Emiratis will just have to find a quiet corner in which to go and die.
Complain about this comment
Q) Which country currently has almost 10,000 nuclear weapons, is the only country ever to drop the bomb in anger (twice) and has illegally entered into a war under false allegations of “weapons of mass destruction”. A) America B) Russia or C) Iran
A) And the award for most likely nation to use the bomb goes to…
Complain about this comment
22.powermeerkat wrote: Shah Reza Pahlavi was one of the most progressived rulers in the Middle East.
He's the one who almost succeded in taking Iran out of Dark Ages and into a modern age.
That's why he was toppled by the likes of ayatollah Khomeini.
But... but... he was evil for putting radical dissidents who preached violent overthrow in jail. And then the lefties from Europe and USA also (Carter and crew) started crying. Iranian lefties also contributed having been promised part of the spoils (ie power share deal) by Khomeini. But of course, once in power, Khomeini had no intention of sharing power with anyone and hanged Iran's socialist/communist leadership.
They were just 'useful idiots' to him.
It's just like how it says in post #24 (powermeerkat):
"We will support and defend any thug, any dictator, any rouge nation, any unsavory regime and any terrorist oufit as long as we think they could do some harm to the United States, or at least cause problems for it" - European Socialist Progressive 'useful idiots'
During the Bush years, we saw those progressive folks gleefully trumpet in support of Mugabe (got applauded by leftist students in Italy), Chavez (building the very dictatorship and crushing dissent like he accused Bush of doing), Kim Jong-Il (who was an enlightened being according to some who heard him criticize the USA), F. Castro and a handful of others. In fact, had ol' Schicklgruber been alive, they'd probably have applauded his speech of dec 11th, 1941 (declaration of war on USA) as well.
I've even heard some 'progressives' speak positive about Al-Shabab, the Somali islamic militias who will have you shot if you watch TV or your beard isn't long enough. Why? They said the 'magic' words: I hate USA and/or Bush.
@21 (BluesBerry)
The IPCC also think the world is vastly overpopulated, except they don't know how to inform the world of this, yet.
Sooner or later, something, or rather someone(s) will have to give.
Complain about this comment
Re: 27
‘The alternative to a thorough pre-emptive strike is to continue to play this futile game of sanctions and negotiations and wait for the day when Iran burns down American cities. What will happen in the aftermath of that?’
We will lose your valuable contributions towards world peace. And we do not want that to happen, do we?
Complain about this comment
All the efforts to "choke" Iran into submission and giving up its god given rights will fail. The West has boxed themselves into a position of either a humiliating climbdown or nuclear war. These are only 2 realistic options that I can see. And I would say that Iran is in the stronger postion because not only will it nuke Israel but it will decimate all Western stooges in the area be it the Saudis, the Kuwatis and the Emeratis. The whole world economy will collapse for lack of Mid east oil which will continue to be king for the forseeable future. Whether through physical or economic devastation, the world will not survive a nuclear attack on Iran. The sooner the warmongers in the world see sense the better.
Complain about this comment
Re BluesBerry @ post 21
Iran declare war on America when it hijack the American Embassy and refuse to release the embassy staff.This war on innocent civilians which Iran has been waging on American ever since it became a Islamic Republic.
Its proxy war in the Middle East by supplying weapons and financial support to terrorist groups against Israel and western troops in the Middle East since 1979 is war against the West.
History has shown Iran was never a peaceful neighbour with Turkey.Its went to war with Iraq because of a dispute with a oil well near its border
You were also wrong to suggest America came into WW2 because of its economic depression.The fact that American refuse to be engage in WW2 at the behest of Britain was document in history.America only became involve fully in WW2 when Japan attack Pearl Harbour.It apparent you have let your prejudice cloud your facts of the History of WW2.Liken the Iranian Regime you evade the truth and blames all its internal problem on the West.It is time Iran is responsible for its internal and foreign
policy.
Complain about this comment
"Tightening of the screw"
Isn't a title of one of the Bard's plays?
Complain about this comment
For a long time since the present leader of Iran came to power ; I have thought that the US reaction to Iran was mistaken . I believe the US should have ignored Iran's provocation .
It is my opinion that Iran's Nuclear programme has been to draw world attention to Iran ; to keep Iran in the public eye ; to give the Iranian people the impression that Iran is a world power and its president a world statesman commanding respect thoughout the world . .
If Iran was to create a nuclear weapon and use it against Israel , they would very soon receive a nuclear bomb on themselves , so no benefit would be gained .
The only benefit to having a nuclear weapon today is as a preventative against attack . Nuclear weapons only serve , to win a war , when only one country has them ; as in the US bombing of Japan in 1945 .
Complain about this comment
36.Wolfgung wrote: Q) Which country currently has almost 10,000 nuclear weapons, is the only country ever to drop the bomb in anger (twice)
In anger? Japan had every opportunity to quit the hopeless war (it was long lost after Phillipine Sea and Leyte Gulf) but kept refusing. And at Potsdam, the allies (USA, British Empire, Republic of China) one more time warned Japan to 'give up or suffer the consequences'. Japan decided to 'mokusatsu' (kill with silent contempt) the ultimatum.
and has illegally entered into a war under false allegations
Sorry, there was nothing illegal about it.
Complain about this comment
36. At 2:44pm on 26 Jul 2010, Wolfgung wrote:
"""Q) Which country currently has almost 10,000 nuclear weapons, is the only country ever to drop the bomb in anger (twice) and has illegally entered into a war under false allegations of “weapons of mass destruction”. A) America B) Russia or C) Iran
A) And the award for most likely nation to use the bomb goes to…""""
...to A. But they do not want to admit it do they?
Complain about this comment
"Tsk tsk tsk, powermeerkat, we are talking so long now, you should had already developed some sense of analytical thought. Try harder."
I don't have to. I've already did my bit. [USSR is no more]
Unlike some KGB/FSB aficionados who have to keep trying.
And yet still "can't get no satisfaction". :)
Complain about this comment
"I guess for you religions are only catholic christians and muslims."
Nope, Nik, and that's I am still waiting (patiently) for your explainining away "new improved democratic Russia"'s invasion of ancient Orthodox Georgia.
Complain about this comment
" Which country currently has almost 10,000 nuclear weapons"
Why, new improved democratic Russia, Werewolf.
[I guess my father haven't bombed your totalitarian lot hard enough]
Complain about this comment
Isenidiotblowingahorn;
"We will lose your valuable contributions towards world peace. And we do not want that to happen, do we?"
You'll lose a lot more than that. If my guess is right you won't survive it. None of us will. The retaliation will be swift and devastating and not just against Iran but against every enemy America has real or imagined.
Complain about this comment
"And then the lefties from Europe and USA also (Carter and crew) started crying."
Please, mvr, do not mention Peanut Farmer.
Even DNC activists don't want to mention Jimmy and pretend he never existed, let alone was a US president.
Complain about this comment
I think this is disgraceful. America's will to police the world has completely masked what is going on here. Iran, a democratic monarchy is being denied a right that is now considered universal and that is for nuclear arms. Clearly if Pakistan, an unstable military regime, is allowed to posses them why cant Iran. Iran only seem hostile because they are surrounded by AMERICAN influence in Pakistan, Afghanistan and now Iraq. Furthermore, North Korea, possibly the most belligerent nation is the world has not been pursued like Iran has. The united states have deemed Iran a threat to world peace and for doing what? Correct me if im mistaken, but has Iran not suffered more than a century of manipulation and exploitation? Was it not America who helped Britain overthrow a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader in Iran: why? for oil! Iran's instability is a direct result of exploitation from the west. THey're only being isolated because they refuse to share what is that their god given resource. 'Capitalism' is not the sharing of resources for the good of all, it is a ideology that has become so far twisted that it favours only the rich and corporate schemers. It is their right, as a sovereign state, to share the same rights as other nations. THe EU, a multilateral organization who i am a fan of, have shown nothing but weakness with their sanctions. They show the same image as the UK did when invading Iraq, that Europe is weak and can be bossed and controlled by the United States!! THis is an insult to the very fabrications of the word FREEDOM, by which we live.
Complain about this comment
#37. At 2:49pm on 26 Jul 2010, mvr512
Did you also happen to hear about the 'progressives'CIA that armed and trained "Freedom fighters" In Afghanistan? Or the 'progressives' that sold weapons of mass destruction to that peace loving dude called Sadam? Or is a case of selective hearing, that only hear things that suit you arguments?:)
Complain about this comment
Mvr512 re Comical Hugo...[a friend of Ahmadinnerjacket]
Comrade Chavez has just got caught red handed, with Colombia supplying not only maps, but also aerial photos, videos and GPS coordinates of FARC terrorist bases in Venezuela.
Well, tough. ;(
Complain about this comment
Re: 32,
Nik,
You should stop falling for the provocations of MA and PM. With those two no person can hold a discussion. It is as if you are trying to discuss with the radio.
No matter how many arguments you bring, they will just ignore them and bring something completely irrelevant, but aimed at irritating the opponent and diverting him/her into another direction.
When I studied English back home, in the textbooks there were dialogues like that:
A: Do you like cheese?
B: I do not like cheese but my brother plays violin well.
The same basic structure is followed by MA and PM, with PM’s posts being more basic, however more appealing to a certain type of poster/readers here. The structure in general is:
PM: The USA defeated the Nazis, the USSR and it must nuke Iran before Iran nukes everybody else. ;-))))))))))))))))))))))))
Another Poster: Why do you think Iran is going to attack the USA with nuclear bombs?
PM: The USA will beat the custard out of Iran. It defeated the Nazis, it defeated the Soviets. American missiles are the best. ‘Bulava’ is rubbish. ;-)))))))))))))))))))))))
Another poster: Other countries also fought in WW2 and there were many factors in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
PM: Rubbish. A power plant was blown up in Russia last week. Eat that, Putin!
;-)))))))))))))))))
Another poster: What’s that got to do with anything?
PM: China will conquer whole of Siberia. ;-)))))))))))))))))))))
Another poster: Why would they want to enter into a military conflict, when they can just buy the oil and gas they need anyway?
PM: In the USA we have our Constitution, our Founding Fathers and our right to bear guns. From my cold dead hands! ;-))))))))))))))
Another poster: Yes, however in countries with gun control there is a lot less gun-related crime.
PM: I was there when the USA defeated the USSR, my friends in Turkey told me the military will overthrow the government soon, I am an ex-military, ex-secret service and was in Hungary when it was fighting the Soviet occupiers ;-)))))))))))))))))))))))
And so on, and so on, and so on… Ad nauseam.
Nik, better do what other posters here are doing. Ignore both.
Complain about this comment
#42. At 3:06pm on 26 Jul 2010, Huaimek
I agree, very valid and logical points. Let them have it, they will not use it.
Complain about this comment
Ask any Miss Universe contestant what she desires most
and she'll answer: "world peace".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'VE JUST SECURED PEACE FOR OUR TIME!" - Neville Chamberlain.
Complain about this comment
Because business interest always trump national interests these situations continue to arise. There was no response to North Korea for sinking a South Korean naval ship and the Western countries issue another round of worthless sanctions. Nations based on theology are always a threat..they believe god is on their side. One can look around the world and see many lands that are ruled by some set of gangsters under various names and forms. The governments are involved to protect the business interests of the nation and care little for the people or potential. Half hearted attempts of support for dissident groups are political theater to establish public relations in place of actions. Iran will pay for challenging the West and how that plays out is anyones guess. The clerical leaders of Iran and the business interests of the West will surely be in conflict and the West no longer has an issue with pre-emptive strikes. There is no higher moral ground in the West and the hollow nature of professed ideologies seems to only find an audience in the closed world of politics. In the end it will be about oil and gas.
Complain about this comment
I see your Jihad and raise you one Crusade?
Crusade... AGAINST THE EU THAT IS!!
Maybe Iran if we have time afterwards. or maybe the Americans can handle that one, I say we let the Pope decide.
Complain about this comment
Dingbat;
"Iran, a democratic monarchy is being denied a right that is now considered universal and that is for nuclear arms."
We saw an example of Iran's democracy last year. Rigged elections, protesters shot in cold blood, prisoners tortured and killed. If that's democracy in Iran, what does dictatorship look like?
There is no universal "right" to nuclear arms. In the peculiar logic of nuclear weapons, those states which are suspected of trying to develop them are open to pre-emptive attack by those who would feel threatened if they have them. When it's a matter of survival, the farsical game of so called international law goes out the window. As the time comes when it is perceived Iran will have a bomb, the likelihood that one or more of those threatened by it will strike and strike very hard before it can acquire them. This chess game Iran is playing is more like high stakes poker. Right now the US and Israel have all the aces. We'll see if they play them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"China will conquer whole of Siberia. ;-)))))))))))))))))))))"
Not necessarily: it'll simply get what's historically theirs:
MANCHURIA. (nobody ever defeated DEMOGRAPHY)
[Japan will take back Sakhalin and Kuril Islands.]
And what are you, fellow travellers, are going to do about it? :-)))))))))))
Complain about this comment
[SLBM]"Bulava’ is rubbish. ;-)))))))))))))))))))))))"
So it is.
Russians can't even get their rivets straight.
Now, would you like to discuss "Boreys"?
Or SA-500 system :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Complain about this comment
"A power plant was blown up in Russia last week. Eat that, Putin!"
Nothing to be happy about: Putin radicalized peoples of subjugated Caucasus and now poor Russians are beginning to pay for his made in KGB stupidity.
[for this is just a beginning]
Complain about this comment
""
You were I was there when the USA defeated the USSR, my friends in Turkey told me the military will overthrow the government soon, I am an ex-military, ex-secret service and was in Hungary when it was fighting the Soviet occupiers ;-)))))))))))))))))))))))
Your were there, Iceberghorn?!
Funny! I don't remember seeing you there.
Were you wearing a Red Army uniform over Wermacht one?
[same difference]
Complain about this comment
Although any country having the bomb is undesireable there must surely be a scale of undesireability as it were. It must also be asked why the Western World sees fit to provoke possible military action against itself from potential nuclear states such as North Korea. In my eyes it must be because;
a)we feel that there's no hope powers outside Europe or America could pose a real threat, i.e. Europe and America are so used to being top of the pile that the idea of losing a war or suffering a full blown attack on home soil seems remote.
or b) secretly war is desireable for any number of reasons, political, economic or idealogical. It just seems better if the potential opposition throws the stone first so that we can then say 'well, we were doing things peacefully but if they react like this....' Surely a hard learnt lesson from Invading Iraq methinks.
Complain about this comment
Re #5
"..does US and a couple of slave countries consist of 'international community'?"
Iran is in breech of the UN Accords & International Treaties on development/uses of Nuclear fissile materials: That is the gist of several UN Security Council Resolutions over years backed by the EU, the Organisation of African States, the Association of South East Asia Nations, plus Russia, China... Now that's what I would tend to think of as fitting the term 'international community'.
Of course, for You it's certainly some 'slave countries'!
If You just paused for a second You'd realise the tosh you write gets more incomprehensible & unsubstantiated with every sentence!
Complain about this comment
Hewitt is getting his information directly from the government employees, again, without bothering to do any independent research.
Pressure on Iran is pressure on Pakistan and china, and that is the whole point, as far as any strategic thinking goes. Of course, the will to have an enemy so that the public are distracted and fearful is probably the only really decisive factor in the political equation, but even that will needs a rational of some kind.
And hurting China is a rational.
China has invested a vast amount of money into pakistan over the past thirty years, thus displacing the US as the foreign power of choice for the Pakistani government. We do not hear a lot about that in the mass media, because a lot of journalists simply go to visit the guy from the government and write down exactly what he wants published, but a little casual research will make the links between China and Iran, via pakistan, clear.
And these are true "links", in every sense of the word. Got to google maps. Check out the bit of dirt between china and the iranian oilfields. Notice that it is exceedingly well stocked with stonking big mountains, and largely devoid of roads.
Well, it just so happens that the chinese have built a massive superhighway linking the western provinces of china with a place called Garda, in Pakistan. Garda was pretty much nothing, but now it is a huge, modern deep water port.
Deep water ports are exceedingly useful because they can accommodate bulk tankers, which are in turn exceedingly useful for the transport of oil. Now Garda is just about smack bang on the mouth of the persian gulf, so named because, haha!, it has ready access to persia. Or Iran, if you like the modern name.
So china has built (and it was entirely chinese firms who built and who now run) the deep water port at Garda, and .... AND the massive superhighway into western china from that port.
And this pleases pakistan greatly, because it runs the length of that country, and is very welcome infrastructure indeed.
Now the Chinese economy is hugely energy poor, insofar as they have negligible reserves of re-finable fossil fuels. They have a stack of coal, and quite a bit of hydro power, but in terms of oil they are very poor. Iran, by contrast, is very, very rich in this commodity.
If China can secure a deep water port and if iran can secure the persian gulf for its shipping, then china and iran make a lovely couple. They will have effectively escaped the US navy and its ability to police the trade of the world. They will also be able to disengage from the US stranglehold on world energy supplies, which is exceedingly useful if you wish to have a bit of punchy punchy with the US military machine. Ask Herr Hitler about that one.
And if china can start to exercise independent military capabilities in the persian gulf, it can also do so in the south china sea, and in the straights of taiwan. And that will tip the balance of power in south east asia.
You folks may have seen the line on the map between the koreas which the BBC publishes as some kind of legitimate boundary. You know the one, it snakes up next to the north korean border and effectively gives south korea ownership of all the water near north korea.
Well that neat little line was drawn by the US military after they decided it was no longer worth land based punchy punchy with the chinese in north korea. It is about as fair as kicking a runaway pig for laughs, but that is how that movie went down at the time and, as remarked earlier, the free west abounds with journalists who ask government officials for the news and publish it accordingly. So now we see that line on the map and think "Oh, a legitimate border!". Such is the education a person receives from the BBC.
Now if you think that line has a long term future, consider the latest military tests carried out by China. You will find the news on this fine website.
It involves china sinking ships with land based rockets.
And there, friends, is the rub.
The USA has an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the middle east. We call it "Israel". But it does not have one in the persian gulf, and it does not have one in china. All it has is south korea and taiwan, and both of those happy places are all too aware what happens if the ghost of Chairman Mao takes a fresh hold of the chinese popular imagination.
The big question for the avid TV audience is this:
How many ships of the line is the US prepared to use before it resorts to nuclear weapons in order to retain its waning influence in both the persian gulf and south east asia?
Folks talk about israel, but israel doesn't matter. Israel mattered when china had no airforce and Europe was the main game. Israel now is about as important as bolivia, which is a happy result for sane israelis.
What matters is when and where china decides to test the mettle of the US navy.
I would suggest it will be in multiple theatre s at once, but that is a wild guess. It might just be in north korea.
After all, the sinking of the south korean warship was just about as close as you could get to the sinking of a US warship in the same or similar waters. hence the chest thumping and war cries from the US. "We are not scared.", they proclaim.
And no doubt they are not. Say what you like about the US military, they do not have a track record of scaring easily. They will take the game to you, if you want it.
But that doesn't mean they will win. And the chinese have a long term view. They may be willing to broker a trade, to get what they want in the long run.
If I was some insane chinese communist party goon, maybe I would think a deal like the following is attractive:
We give the USA:
20 million lives and 4 cities, and a chance to show they will use nukes to preserve their empire.
The USA will give us:
4 fleets at the bottom of various oceans, the persian gulf, vast oil supplies, taiwan and south korea.
A lot of folks would take that deal in a snap.
I mean, a lot of folks would strap TNT to their privates and run screaming into a football match and blow innocents to hell for the sake of celebrity in an outdated theocratic freak show.
What is not to like about the grand bargain, if it means longer term power in exchange for a few million folks?
The chinese lose that many people to floods, for heavens sake.
It is an attractive deal, I figure.
Complain about this comment
Like it or not we are being led into another war, quite possibly WW3.
The US has managed to acquire more "poodles" ...this time Canada and the EU have bought into the US party line of Iran being the "evil empire". Each poodle has adopted the same sanctions as promoted by the US neocons and pro-Israel lobby groups.
And further laying of groundwork for war is underway. The proposed US House of Representatives Resolution 1553 effectively gives the "green light" to Israel for an attack on Iran. It is another example of the Legistlative Branch taking foreign policy responsibilty away from the Administrative Branch. It seems that AIPAC is in full control of US foreign policy.
SPEAK UP NOW or soon you will be sending your sons and daughters to war!!
Complain about this comment
Americans, Canadians, Europeans WAKE UP!
You are being recruited to fight an unjust war on behalf of the State of Israel. When your dead and wounded return home you will have no one to blame except yourselves.
Complain about this comment
Michael Hayden is right that sanctions won't stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, but that doesn't mean United States will bomb them - [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Let us be clear is not Iran the problem in the middle east the problem is the Israel government and all the country which give support.
The policy of Israel create a very fertile ground for the extremist in the Muslim world to recruit terrorists. The Hebrew have the right to live in Israel and the people of Palestine have the same right.
Let the world create a federal Palestine to include Israel and Palestine and the world will become a safe place.
John
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Cathode Ray;
"Like it or not we are being led into another war, quite possibly WW3."
Yes by North Korea and Iran. Too bad we didn't accept the inevitability of that long ago when military victory could have been had at much lower cost both to ourselves and to the enemy's civilians. Now far more destruction and death will have to be inflicted to remove their threats. Al Qaeda could have been stopped before 9-11 too. It's not a matter of lack of means but of poltical will. In other words no spine whatsoever. America is not electing leaders but community organizers.
Complain about this comment
The Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, said recently, "it is obvious Iran is getting close to acquiring nuclear capability that can be used in theory to create nuclear weapons".
--------
I do hereby inform the esteemed readers of this blog that President Medvedev did not have authorization to say anything like that (I didn't give him permission). I don't think anybody in Russia wants to have anything to do with the current (yet another) anti-Iranian drive.
Also, the Americans and the Europeans talk too much rubbish viz-a-viz Iran and its supposed nuclear program.
You have a problem with that? Well, act like the great powers that you supposedly are and just go in and end it and/or have a regime change. You don't have the guts (wits, nards) to do that? Then for Chrissake shut up! (and stop aggravating the common people of Iran with your stupid sanctions).
Complain about this comment
Re #66
Calm down, calm down!
A few G&T in the smouldering afternoon & the siren Swiss sage smelts into a simpleton sooth-sayer sold on slaughter scenarios seldom seen before sunset!
Complain about this comment
At 3:46pm on 26 Jul 2010,MarcusUrinaliusII wrote:
'The retaliation will be swift and devastating and not just against Iran but against every enemy America has real or imagined.'
***********************************
Yes, yes, Granddad! Of course it will be.
re; 60-63,
Ref. 53. Ditto.
Complain about this comment
The current nuclear powers have proven themselves to be reasonably responsible with them. But the risks and ramifications are so great that no other country should be allowed to develop them, its bad enough that Pakistan has them.
Complain about this comment
This is getting way too dangerous for my liking. The mad Ayatollahs in the Middle East, the even madder Sarah Palin (nuke them all) and her religious nutters in America waiting in the wings and us poor Europeans piggy in the middle.
Armageddin out of here.
Complain about this comment
Nothing to worry about, Israel will solve the problem of the madmen in Iran when it becomes necessary and before they get their hands on a viable nuclear bomb. Though, it's highly likely that if Iran is as good at building bombs as it is at running it's economy, the chances are they'll blow themselves away anyway.
Complain about this comment
How lovely.
While Iraq is burning in sectarian strife and Afghanistan is being exposed for the quagmire we all (except some few deluded militaristic lunatics) knew it was, the EU and Canada very obligingly execute the Washington orders of "isolating Iran".
How could we refuse, we all hugged and danced when Obama was elected. But we refuse to understand the simple reality: even if Noam Chomsky was elected to the White House, he would still have to do what the money that brought him in tells him to do.
War.
Too bad for NATO though that the EU and North America, while still representing a bit more than 50% of the World's economy, are quickly fading away in front of the BRICS rise.
The Europeans politicos instead of playing world leaders would better do and sort out things at home. We don't need Wikileaks to tell us that things are not going well here.
Complain about this comment
isenidiottootingmyownhorn;
What's the good of having 10,000 hydrogen bombs if you don't use a few of them once in awhile.
What do you think will happen if America is nuked? Do you think the generals will sit around trying to figure out which one did it?
Complain about this comment
#72 MarcusAurellius
´Yes by North Korea and Iran.´--and Israel and the American Zionist lobby and yourself.
Complain about this comment
#68 RGBviews
--- And the innocent Iranians ?
You forgot them ?
Complain about this comment
80. At 9:32pm on 26 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
isenidiottootingmyownhorn;
What's the good of having 10,000 hydrogen bombs if you don't use a few of them once in awhile.
What do you think will happen if America is nuked? Do you think the generals will sit around trying to figure out which one did it?
------------
Well, that would be the sane option...
Complain about this comment
Sanctions against Iran will only make the Iranian government want more badly to have nuclear weapons. Why? Simply because that is the only rational choice that they have.
Lets look this whole issue from the Iranian eyes...
1) They see Israel with approx few hundred nuclear weapons and capability to deliver them to Iran. The threat that those weapons create is an existential threat against Iran and that threat can be triggered by non-Iranian actors: A) the Samson option where Israel will use its nuclear arsenal as its last act to destroy not only their enemies but more or less everybody around them, including in worst case scenario parts of Europe too; and B) Israel having an trend of increasing ultra-Orthodox religious sentiment could in a worst case scenario lead Israel to have an religious regime set on waging religious war against its neighbors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
2) They see their Arab neighbors being more and more armed by western states with modern weaponry and being more and more capable of using those weapons. In a worst case scenario there will be another Iraq-Iran war, but this time they don't just face Iraq armed by the USA but also Saudi-Arabia, the war likely being fought as an religious-ethnic war. In the last war with Iraq, Iran lost from 500 thousand to one million of their people. If there would be another conventional war against Iran, they would have hard time winning it and they could only do it by sacrificing lot of their lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Iran_War
3) They see their economic situation becoming worser in near decades thus making it harder to keep up adequate defense without sacrificing living standards even more.
4) They see other neighboring states like Pakistan having a nuclear weapons and a nuclear program without having any problem.
The only way out of this situation is either of...
A) Iran getting the bomb and needed delivery mechanisms thus creating balance with Israel with mutually assured destruction and creating a destructive threat against their Arab neighbors.
B) Israel giving up their nuclear weapons and rich Arab states cutting their armaments budgets to level where they don't have any more capability to invade Iran.
Having the option B to come true would be the best case for everybody, but as we are living in this world the option A will become true eventually. In my mind the European Union should prepare for this situation and keep our relations to Israelis, Arabs and Iranians as neutral and civil as possible thus allowing us to pacify the situation after the dust has been settled by offering all willing participants trade and other benefits in exchange for political settlements between states.
Complain about this comment
#16 Mehtab
I agree.
If Britain had given Israel the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) for a homeland -- the world would be a safer place.
Complain about this comment
When is the World going to remember that one George Bush and one Tony Blair need to be indicted for genocide in Iran?
Complain about this comment
@84
I agree that the most likely option is Iran getting the bomb IF nothing is done first. Even if the country were to be invaded before they reached such a stage the amount of nuclear material they already supposedly have would cause problems if they were to set off a so called dirty bomb or supply the materials to groups abroad to do so. One danger must be that even without a delivery system any form of nuclear weapon would be a danger to invading forces, I doubt Iran's leadership would have too many qualms about sacrificing their country to prove a point. After all do not Islamic terrorists state that innocent Muslims killed in terror attacks 'enjoy' a martyrs death?
Still, I doubt provocation is a sensible course to take.
Complain about this comment
53. Isenhorn
I would love for you to do a similar treatise on your most favored Nik.
The material is vast.
Complain about this comment
34. At 2:38pm on 26 Jul 2010, Bora:
"""...I have read BBC for many years as I thought it had been comparatively objective.
But the moderator team is hundred percent subjective.
Discussion is pointless since one sided discussion is no discussion.
Letting house-rules breaking posts in and censoring plain comments is not of good will..."""
Still laughing by your post Bora...
2 days ago i was commenting on your Turkey's English Daily
news - Hürriyet...exactly on the article:
Israeli, Greek leaders vow closer ties
The very first post (from bottom to the top) of a certain H.KEMAL was offensive regarding Greece and Greek people. I personally post his same exactly post...by only inverting the words "Greek" with "Turk", "Israel" with "Arab" and "sudden friendship" with "sudden enmity".
Try to guess!...Do you think moderators supported my freedom of expression by putting it on line? Of course not.
Why not? Because it was hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults against Turkishness and violation of Turkish press law.
So i wrote a second one, explaining only what i had posted to the first one...just like now, with you. Same result: violation of Turkish press law.
So before crying to the moderators inside here think twice...unless you want me keep laughing at you.
As for Turkish Censorship, suppression of speech and deletion of communicative material (same as in Iran or China), take a look here about who's still crying in your country
the Banning websites (I)
the Banning websites (II)
Complain about this comment
I've met in my life dozen of Persians as well as British. In a scale from 1 to 10, Persians were 10 and British 3 to 4. Life make all of us take different directions and paths but i still remember quite all my Persian friends while on the other side i remember quite none of the British i've met in my life.
Persians hearts were just, frank, kindly, ready to help with no return as well as to be helped while carrying on great sense of integrity, friendship, moral and honour. Curious about the Greek culture and my self we had been truly connected
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power so if i had to choose between Persians or British to whom could acquire nuclear capability i would definetly choose the Persians
Complain about this comment
@#48: Missileloving American:
"The retaliation will be swift and devastating and not just against Iran but against every enemy America has real or imagined".
Thx for the warning. If you are anything of an example (God forbid), according to the likes of you (retired and grumpy schoolteachers in the USA) the whole world is indeed an enemy. Including anyone who even thinks about mending broken systems (such as for example health systems in the US). That person automatically is a 'liberal', and hence worth bombing...
The one thing that the USA gave us is the completed tarnishing of the words 'freedom' and 'democracy'. These words can not be uttered by any American anymore without risking connotations of bombing, illegal invasions and years of occupation.
Hence, this talk of Iran (and yes, I know the place very well, and it is a nutty regime...) coming from the US is simply not credible.
Complain about this comment
"#16 Mehtab
I agree.
If Britain had given Israel the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) for a homeland -- the world would be a safer place."
And it would have been far safer still if America had given Britain the Falkland Islands as a homeland. It can still be arranged although the sheep might not like it. They might assert their rights to the land as they were there first. Then what is now the British Isles can be returned to its rightful owners, the Druids.
Complain about this comment
Ellinas
Re #90
It is a strange perspective some like You have on other peoples: In my 60+ years I've met what I felt were good-bad-indifferent people from all over the World - - I never once thought to judge an entire Nation by any of them - - that would seem the height of fanciful illogicality.
Nevertheless, I'm sure everyone shares Your pleasure at Your Persian friends and doubtless some will share Your dissatisfaction with Your erstwhile British ones.
That said, I do hope next time You are in Iran You take the the time & trouble to introduce Yourself to all those simply lovable Iran Revolutionary Guards, plus those delightful black-robed Ayatollahs with their mysoginistic, cruel attitudes to Human Rights: While You are at it, maybe You could request to see the thousands of Iranians from the socialist/communist parties, the liberal opposition groups & the Womens Rights groups all serving lengthy Prison Sentences for daring to suggest the Persian People deserve a better form of Government than the vindictive, bigoted & anti-Democratic regime presently in place!
Oh, by the way - - do say 'Hi!' to Your Persian chums from me and the rest of the unruly British - - You know the ones who doubtless You are glad to see the back of almost as much as we realise we have escaped the friendship of someone as naive & subjective as Yourself!
Complain about this comment
Re #66 & China - Pakistan
In all seriousness I've tried google and other search engines and CANNOT find the 'Garda' port on Pakistan's coast.
Has the name been misspelt or is my google earth not upto standard!?
Complain about this comment
93. At 08:38am on 27 Jul 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
""""That said, I do hope next time You are in Iran You take the the time & trouble to introduce Yourself to all those simply lovable Iran Revolutionary Guards, plus those delightful black-robed Ayatollahs with their mysoginistic, cruel attitudes to Human Rights: While You are at it, maybe You could request to see the thousands of Iranians from the socialist/communist parties, the liberal opposition groups & the Womens Rights groups all serving lengthy Prison Sentences for daring to suggest the Persian People deserve a better form of Government than the vindictive, bigoted & anti-Democratic regime presently in place!""""
CBW we do not need to go to Iran to see all that.
Below, dedicated with love:
That said, I do hope next time You are in Turkey You take the the time & trouble to introduce Yourself to all those simply lovable Turkish police plus those delightful Grey Wolfs with their mysoginistic, cruel attitudes to Human Rights: While You are at it, maybe You could request to see the thousands of Turkish citizens Iranians from the socialist/communist parties, the liberal opposition groups & the Womens Rights groups all serving lengthy Prison Sentences for daring to suggest negative things about Turkey revealing the vindictive, bigoted & anti-Democratic regime presently in place!
Complain about this comment
90. At 03:27am on 27 Jul 2010, Ellinas wrote:
"""I've met in my life dozen of Persians as well as British. In a scale from 1 to 10, Persians were 10 and British 3 to 4."""
To be fair, in this you must count perhaps the possibility to have met among Persians more often people of mid-higher social classes and British of mid-lower social classes with all what comes with it.
Still, there are things to be noted. I do not know how to explain but ancient cultures like us, Persians, Indians and Chinese have some kind of inner understanding of the style "we have seen it all and it does not impress us anymore".
Even more, the relation of Greeks and Iranians are quite somethings. For a change, we are one of the few that still call them Persians, they love it. We are one of the very very few that do not mention their religion when we meet them: we know they existed millenia before the advent of islam. They love it (even the religious ones love it). Them too have a deep respect for the Greek culture, a true one. Unlike Arabs whose cultural level is very superficial or Turks whose cultural level is simply inexistent (unless we think culture is all about 2,3 dishes and occupying other peoples' antiquities...), Persians have a real culture. In fact, whatever had been achieved in the past by "muslims" was at a 80% rate donw to Persians singlehandedly (whom we distinguish badly due to the islamic names). And still today that makes the difference: Persians no matter the weird regime imposed upon them thanx to US barricading their country remain the most civilised, progressive and even democratic (to whatever extent) nation in Middle East.
"""Curious about the Greek culture and my self we had been truly connected"""
It is not strange. For millenia we had borders. Not that we were particularly friendly either but it is false to think that there was constant warfare. There was always mutual respect and cultural exchanges: Parthian and Sassanid Iranian Empires were particularly influenced by Hellenism and the early Eastern Roman Empire was largely influenced by Sassanids. Few know it but you should keep in mind that up to the 7th century, the second language in the Sassanid Empire was... Greek. Therefore, despite the distance, Greeks and Persians are no strangers to each other.
"""Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power so if i had to choose between Persians or British to whom could acquire nuclear capability i would definetly choose the Persians"""
I would chose Persians too trusting their lack of aggressiveness in comparison to anglosaxons. Britain is not a country that decides on itself afterall no matter if British citizens are, like the rest of the Europeans, largely against perhaps the majority of British international diplomatic moves (Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, N. Korea).
Complain about this comment
Re #95
Already know quite a few Turkish who're ex-armed forces like myself: All conscripts, none happy about it, though good company & mean b*****s in a fight (NATO exercises)!
Then again, I also know a number of ex-Greek armed forces & I can honestly state whenever in their company none of them for one iota of any day gave the sadly deluded, irrational impression stuff such as Your contributions. They too, stood their ground in the training; their Officers were usually duff, but the ordinary soldier was well upto par.
Same can be said for the Spanish, German, Italian, American, Norwegian, Danish, Australian, New Zealand, Americans etc. also met in service, who all, just like the Brits, had their faults & foibles: None sounded-off about the World like a demented rabbit trapped in a fox-hole - - I had to wait until these Blogs and Your squealing alongside MAscaridII for that experience!
Maybe that is what You lack - - the experience of friendship/comradeship in adversity - - You spout-off because You really don't know when push-comes-to-shove we are dependent on the man/woman beside us whether it's a hole in the ground or an office desk!
Is that it? You are so busy telling everyone what is wrong You never had time to consider if something was wrong in their lives and what You could do about it!?
A sure way to know many people and not get known!
There's the old saying: Some people experience a thousand different things and some people experience the same thing a thousand times!
I think I just figured which camp You are in, poor lad!
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
Yes i cannot deny that that is true. President ahmadinejad did do those things. My argument, however, is that after a century of manipulation designed to acquire Iranian oil, is paranoia and suspicion not valid? When Mossadeq was in power, the Americans and the British used students to create fervor against Mossadeq to overthrow him. President Ahmadinejad is behaving erratically because historically it has been this type of protest that has led to an exertion of further western influence in Iran. I dont justify his actions but i see the rationale behind in.
In regards to your second point, i would agree. The international scene has always been based on survival since the Cold War.Iran's enrichment programme is a direct response to not only the threat of her neighbours, but to the evident influence that America possesses in Asia and the Middle East. Only time can show us future.
Complain about this comment
#94 try Gwadar .... fairly close to Iran.
Complain about this comment
MAscaridII
Re #92
Even in the field of Animal Husbandry Your unfailing gift for getting things back-to-front never lets You down!
It was the British brought the 'sheep' to the Falkland islands.
First there?
The albatross, seagulls, penguins & seals etc.
Complain about this comment
" The USA has an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the middle east. We call it "Israel". But it does not have one in the persian gulf, and it does not have one in china. Only S. Korea and Taiwan..."etc
Last time I checked JAPAN (and US bases in it) were still there," and not wiped off the world map" by Ahmadinnerjacket, Hujintao or ill Kim Jong-il.
BTW. Try and sink any aircraft carrier of the US VIIth Fleet. Good luck!
Complain about this comment
"It was the British brought the 'sheep' to the Falkland islands."
Argentinian junta's enthusiasts used to call them Malvinas sheep. :)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
92. At 05:33am on 27 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"#16 Mehtab
I agree.
If Britain had given Israel the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) for a homeland -- the world would be a safer place."
And it would have been far safer still if America had given Britain the Falkland Islands as a homeland. It can still be arranged although the sheep might not like it. They might assert their rights to the land as they were there first. Then what is now the British Isles can be returned to its rightful owners, the Druids.
-------------------
Marky, as a Welsh man who can trace his lineage back to the 1650`s in & around this the county of Pembrokshire,with some coming from the ancient
Preseli mountains that has a village called Temple Druid I wish to state
the following.I as representative of the Druids on this blog wish this on
my home land,Welcome all you the English who could see the beauty of this
place who with hard work rebuilt so many cottages & buildings that were
in total ruin,Welcome you the Indian family's who with hard work built & made successful restaurants`& so many small businesses.Welcome you the
Chinese are doing the same. Wales is a peace full place of opportunity.
BTW marky if you want to send folk back to their place of starting,what
unlucky place is going to end up with you?.O hell!! NO NO not here!!...
Complain about this comment
96. At 09:25am on 27 Jul 2010, Nik wrote:
"Turks whose cultural level is simply inexistent (unless we think culture is all about 2,3 dishes and occupying other peoples' antiquities...)"
oh yeah, and you so much resemble ancient greece, beacon of freedom, democracy, technology, philosophy, culture...ok I feel dizzy *chuckle*
Complain about this comment
Guys, guys . PHHHLEEEASE!
In case some of you haven't noticed this thread is about Islamist Republic IRAN and EU policies vis a vis that caliphate.
NOT about Greece or injustices that country suffered from practically everybody else in this world since times immemorial.
[except for Iran, of course].
So could you just cease and disist?
Or at least wait until a new thread is started by Gavin after Greece's default?
thank you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The key to peace with Iran can be found in just one word - moderation.
I think it is perfectly fine for Iranians to be proud of the culture. For many decades, they had been the driving force towards Muslim inventiveness and ingenuity, alongside Arabs and Turks. But one should realise that there is now a problem in the world of Islam. The regression to religious fundamentalism has hurt every single culture it happened in. It happened in Afghanistan, it happened in Algeria and Egypt and it is happening in Lebanon and in Iran.
Something must happen from within, perhaps some sort of era enlightenment not unlike the one that happened in England, France, central Europe and North America and which was essentially the birth of Western Civilisation. I do not think that Islamic fundamentalism can be defeated from the outside. We are talking about a change of mindest, which you cannot force.
In the meantime, the West must do its utmost to contain religious fundaqmentalism whereever it rears its ugly head. I fully endorse the sanctions against Iran. Iranians, too, are beginning to realise that antagonism towards the west and hostility to enlightenment are simply not very promising paths for them to take.
Note that this is not meant to discriminate against or denegrade the religion of Islam. All religions are harmful in my view, especially when people turn into religious fanatics and nutcases. But it just so happens that most religious zealots can be found in the Islamic world these days. This does not change anything about the fact that Muslims in Britain and across Europe have made important contributions to our civilisation. It would be a big mistake or the West to be hostile towards Islam or to make Muslims feel unwelcome or alien in the West.
Complain about this comment
philipwx
Re #99 & Gwadar, Pakistan.
Thank you. Worked like a charm - - interesting details.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat
Re #102
Yes, and even the sheep organised protests when the Argies stuck their noses in circa autumn 1982 - - they shed their fleece out of season!
Complain about this comment
66. At 5:54pm on 26 Jul 2010, democracythreat wrote:
… wrote a priceless text! That is what I really want to comment here.
“””Hewitt is getting his information directly from the government employees, again, without bothering to do any independent research.”””
Hewitt’s preferred articles are on the inability of Europe to climb up the hill it perceives as a mountain. From there on he will just reproduce what is in the news. But that is not the point in his articles, he should know that in his list people will go further thus he should not be restricted in his choice of quantity and quality of information. Well, at the end his a professional: when a German president is… fired for saying the obvious (happened last month!) guess how much more a journalist.
“””Pressure on Iran is pressure on Pakistan and china, and that is the whole point, as far as any strategic thinking goes.”””
Pricesely.
“””And these are true "links", in every sense of the word. Got to google maps. Check out the bit of dirt between china and the iranian oilfields. Notice that it is exceedingly well stocked with stonking big mountains, and largely devoid of roads. Well, it just so happens that the chinese have built a massive superhighway linking the western provinces of china with a place called Garda, in Pakistan. Garda was pretty much nothing, but now it is a huge, modern deep water port. Deep water ports are exceedingly useful because they can accommodate bulk tankers, which are in turn exceedingly useful for the transport of oil. Now Garda is just about smack bang on the mouth of the persian gulf, so named because, haha!, it has ready access to persia. Or Iran, if you like the modern name.”””
I have searched in the googlemaps and I unlike CBW who is not that trained in that kind of searching have found it under the name of Gwadar (I guess the local name). What is extremely funny is that of all the names of towns that were written in latin alphabet, this particular was written in Pakistani alphabet as if it had to be hidden or something (I am joking but then… what for?). I zoomed and saw that the photos of the port are a bit weird (as if airbrushed or something but then let it be…). I measured the straight line distance form the port to the Iranian border to 71km and the distance with the existing road network about 85km. Interestingly on the other side of the border, there is an Iranian road named: “Bahukalat Protected Area Road” which is quite evidently going straight southeast (in that extremely flat, arid land) pointing directly the way of the Gwadar port and not any other Pakistani city of the area.
Then went to wikipedia and read:
“Gwadar Port is a deep-sea, warm-water port situated at Gwadar in Balochistan province of Pakistan at the apex of the Arabian Sea and at the entrance of the Persian Gulf, about 460 km west of Karachi and approximately 75 km east of Pakistan's border with Iran. The port is located at 25°06′45″N 62°20′19″E / 25.1125°N 62.33861°E / 25.1125; 62.33861Coordinates: 25°06′45″N 62°20′19″E / 25.1125°N 62.33861°E / 25.1125; 62.33861. The Port is being constructed in two phases with heavy investment from China. Technical and financial feasibility studies were commenced by Pakistan in 1993 but construction did not start until 2002 when the Port of Singapore Authority was hired for its management. Gwadar Port became operational in 2008.”
Extremely interesting. Indeed the neighbouring Iranian region of Balochistan got into the US lexicon quite lately and last year we had the advent of new pro-independence groups that after millennia of non-existence remembered in 2009 to ask for independence. We get the point easily.
Complain about this comment
“””So china has built (and it was entirely chinese firms who built and who now run) the deep water port at Garda, and .... AND the massive superhighway into western china from that port. And this pleases pakistan greatly, because it runs the length of that country, and is very welcome infrastructure indeed.””””
Now you know why Jeffrey did not want evil things like Chinese investments in underexploited ports of Greece. He is a patriot you see. He did what he did for the best of his country (i.e. USA).
“””If China can secure a deep water port and if iran can secure the persian gulf for its shipping, then china and iran make a lovely couple.”””
Precisely.
“””They will have effectively escaped the US navy and its ability to police the trade of the world. They will also be able to disengage from the US stranglehold on world energy supplies, which is exceedingly useful if you wish to have a bit of punchy punchy with the US military machine.”””
Precisely. It has been 4 months I am shouting this here and few seem to comprehend.
“””And if china can start to exercise independent military capabilities in the persian gulf, it can also do so in the south china sea, and in the straights of taiwan. And that will tip the balance of power in south east asia.”””
Precisely. Why do you think everyone has fallen on Burma? Burma is the only country between China and the wester side of the Indian ocean. You only need one Chinese investment in a Burma port in the Indian ocean and one railway to connect the large production centers of China to the western Indian ocean. Now you know why all that fuss is going on about Burma.
“””You folks may have seen the line on the map between the koreas which the BBC publishes as some kind of legitimate boundary….Well that neat little line was drawn by the US military… It is about as fair as kicking a runaway pig for laughs….the free west abounds with journalists who ask government officials for the news and publish it accordingly…… So now we see that line on the map and think "Oh, a legitimate border!". Such is the education a person receives from the BBC.”””
Ehehe… you describe something that we have seen most evidently in the case of Jugoslavia repeatedly. Kosovo was backed when it claimed with guns its break away taking with it some historic Serbian lands. At the same time Bosnia Erzegovina, an artificial state created by dictator Tito after chopping up Serbia and Croatia was backed to fight against the independence of Bosnian Serbs who down to the basics only found themselves in that state after Tito’s chopping. Two cases of regions asking their independence, two ridiculously different approaches on borders.
Then the equally blatant comparison of Kosovo to Ossetia and Abkhasia. You google Serbia, there you see Kosovo lined. You google Georgia and it seems like everything is fine while the 1/3 of the Georgian state is nowadays simply the Russian protectorates of Abkhazia and Ossetia. Talking about some ostrich behaviour there!
See, Serbia was already linked to a major gas pipeline. On the other hand, in Georgia it pains having the Russians 15km from where the Nabucco should pass. Tricky for the “Uncle Sam and his Michaels and Jeffreys”. And on the south side those nasty Armenians can’t forget their only 1,5 million genocided 95 years ago and make friends with Turks (who should really had completed their extermination 100 years back) to provide an alternative route. Too bad now the whole region might risk getting into generalised war if the Southstream gets ahead of Nabucco but then let it be. Better kill all than permit others to make 1 dollar more than “us”.
“””Now if you think that line has a long term future, consider the latest military tests carried out by China. You will find the news on this fine website. It involves china sinking ships with land based rockets.”””
Extremely amusing. Rockets are the always the pain in the behinds of US military men.
“””The USA has an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the middle east. We call it "Israel". But it does not have one in the persian gulf, and it does not have one in china. All it has is south korea and taiwan, and both of those happy places are all too aware what happens if the ghost of Chairman Mao takes a fresh hold of the chinese popular imagination.”””
The big question for the avid TV audience is this:
“””How many ships of the line is the US prepared to use before it resorts to nuclear weapons in order to retain its waning influence in both the persian gulf and south east asia?”””
They never had that type of inhibitions. They will invent some new myth like they did in 2001 and they will go on. The majority of US citizens are too much brainwashed to make the effort to comprehend deeper these issues. So they will either follow or accept. What can you do anyway. For the last 9 years 1000s of US civil engineers working in CAD/FEA design & analysis played with elaborate simulations of skyscrapers hit by huge airplanes full of fuel and all the goodies yet they have never managed to make the towers fall vertically in a free-fall style because simply it is against the law of basic physics. Do you think these guys believe the lie? No, but what can you do about it? Start a conspiracy theory or something?
“””Folks talk about israel, but israel doesn't matter. Israel mattered when china had no airforce and Europe was the main game. Israel now is about as important as bolivia, which is a happy result for sane israelis.”””
No. In the eastern Mediterranean now Turkey matters more.
“””What matters is when and where china decides to test the mettle of the US navy. I would suggest it will be in multiple theatre s at once, but that is a wild guess. It might just be in north korea.”””
After all, the sinking of the south korean warship was just about as close as you could get to the sinking of a US warship in the same or similar waters. hence the chest thumping and war cries from the US. "We are not scared.", they proclaim.
And no doubt they are not. Say what you like about the US military, they do not have a track record of scaring easily. They will take the game to you, if you want it.
“””But that doesn't mean they will win. And the chinese have a long term view. They may be willing to broker a trade, to get what they want in the long run.”””
Just like the Russian waiting game.
Complain about this comment
# 103. At 10:09am on 27 Jul 2010, you wrote:
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
CBW, this comment was not refering to anything other than that above you lost the point completely and that if you are just about to change discussion to save the day you'd better simply abstain from discussion.
53. At 3:53pm on 26 Jul 2010, Isenhorn wrote:
This message is priceless Isenhorn. And permit me to add CBW in the above category. I will avoid adding MacTurk or Bora on the basis of their inability to comprehend even the basics of what we refer here and keep talking only against those that they perceive as having insulted turkisness, which is all what counts for them.
Complain about this comment
The reality is that nuclear weapons technology was developed around 70 years ago. It is only a matter of time before countries are sufficiently advanced that they would be able to develop these weapons themselves. To do this does require certain facilities to be made and specific elements manufactured. Whilst it might be possible to force iran at the moment to appear to give up nuclear ambitions the US and the EU by there actions are making Iran want these devices more so than ever.
North Korea has not been attacked over the sinking of the South Korean Cruiser because it has demonstrated nuclear weapons and escalation of any conflict is a significant risks. By Irans thinking if it had the same devices, the US could not force the same level of restrictions on Iran.
At some point in the future I suspect Iran will develop the technology. Hoping that Isreal sends in the bombers to sort things out may not work in the long term. I think at some point the world will have to accept Iran with Nukes in the same way it accepted , the US, USSR, China, Isreal, UK, France, North Korea, South Africa, India and Pakistan as having (or having had) them.
Complain about this comment
#108. At 11:41am on 27 Jul 2010, Chris Camp wrote:
"perhaps some sort of era enlightenment not unlike the one that happened in England, France, central Europe and North America "
enlightenment, in North America? when did that take place exactly? I didn't learn about that one!:))
Complain about this comment
"Iranians, too, are beginning to realise that antagonism towards the west and hostility to enlightenment are simply not very promising paths for them to take."
We know that Iranian Islamist REGIME is hostile to the West and wants to turn Persia back into Dark Ages.
However we don't know whether Iranian POPULATION thinks that and what it wants for there hasn't been a single free, democratic and not-fraudulent election in Iran in many decades.
[we don't even know who exactly RULES Iran these days]
Judging be recent massive demonstrations in Tehran, Ishfahan, Shiraz and other major cities) at least better educated Iranians (particularly the young ones) are quite sympathetic to Western values and western culture, art and music.
Complain about this comment
Additional EU and US sanctions seem only to be hitting hit their own companies. The Chinese for one are rubbing their hands in glee, only too willing to take their place. Not to mention the fact that Iranian companies too are more than capable of filling any gaps. Western companies may have technology that could extract more oil but I'm sure the Iranians can live with extracting 90% rather than 95%. The only loosers are Total and the likes. Today BP announced that it has had to set aside $30 billions for expected greedy claims by Americans. I wonder if they are regretting doing business with America ?. Wonder too how many other companies are thinking that doing business with America may to the exclusion of others may not be good for their financial health ?
Complain about this comment
66. At 5:54pm on 26 Jul 2010, democracythreat wrote:
""""If I was some insane chinese communist party goon, maybe I would think a deal like the following is attractive:
We give the USA:
20 million lives and 4 cities, and a chance to show they will use nukes to preserve their empire.
The USA will give us:
4 fleets at the bottom of various oceans, the persian gulf, vast oil supplies, taiwan and south korea.""""
The analysis of the scenario is correct: US has more to lose and China more to win in a war scenario even if a linear US military victory is more probable than not.
And that is why I believe that this scenario will be avoided by US. Here we must take into account the fact that the case is much more complicated. There is not only China but there is also India and Russia in the picture. Pushing down China more than a certain level, means giving more space for India and Russia and Russia remains still the enemy no1 of US in the world being the only country in the world that can bring the US back to the stone age while India is no particular friend of America and even worse, it is in an "unpronounced" block with Russia. More interestingly lately, India enterred in a new era of nuclear tech. with the command of the construction of numerous nuclear sites given to Russian nuclear power companies - and one may only wonder that this actually may be accompagnied with military exchanges too on the top of the numerous deals concerning conventional arms.
On the other hand, China is the no1 country for US-derived investments. If China did what it did, it did it thanks to the attention that US investors gave there - not that this should be puzzling: China since its gradual opening, was anyway the place to invest.
Therefore for the Americans the balance is extremely thin: they need China as an "unpronounced" partner in the region. But they just want to see China not overinflated so much so it goes completely on its own in regions that previously US yiedled unquestioned control (eastern Middle East, Africa etc.). However, Americans would never try to completely undermine the Chinese development since that would be music to the ears of Russians and Indians and that is the last thing they want. Americans only wish to continue pUmping on the international commerce in Asia and keep controling who trades with whom, that is all. Having China as the major player is not against US interests but then having it "going completely on the loose" (i.e. trading on its own) is unacceptable.
As much as Americans are playing on a thin like, Chinese too, walk on a razor edge. They do not like being dictated where to buy and where to sell but then they cannot afford direct confrontation with the US which could afterall be a helpful partner in their competitive interests against Russians and Indians: Chinese do not hide that they eye the southern part of the Himalayas to get the strategic advantage over the Indians and control their water sources while they also eye the relatively unpopulated and underexploited areas of Russia where they wish to source their materials: yet a confronation with Russia is unthinkable. If China had a chance to do so that should be during the Russian short-lived generals' move of 1991. Now it is too late. Russia will have established a whole cosmodrome some 100-200km from Chinese borders and touching it would imply Pekin, Shangai and the world's biggest city with the unpronounceable name of Chonghonggongsomething (more than 30 million people cramped in a city) being blasted to oblivion. And Chinese know that it is better to buy their material from Russians double price than risk such.
Therefore, things are extremely complicated and everyone is finding himself with conflicting interests, even internally. One has to watch out for events to come. Nothing will be accidental.
Keep an eye for more similar events:
1) More trouble in Pakistani and Iranian Balochistan
2) Afganistan and north western Pakistan in constant civil war
3) More hot events between N. and S. Koreans
4) Spread of fanatical wahabbi islamism in Caucasus
5) Hot events between Armenia and Azerbaitzan
6) Bosnia becoming a haven for fanatical islamists in Europe
7) Albanian/muslim terrorists trying to incite Albanian/muslim immigrants in Greece
8) Muslim minority of Bulgaria pressing for autonomy.
The above are quite evident and not difficult to guess so I won't even celebrate if I get them right. However, my favourite prediction, one that none of you ever thought, is the following:
9) A "grave accident" of some cargo/oil carrier in Bosphorus followed by Turkey raising environmental issues in the passage and trying to implement the partial closure of the straights to commercial ships named "environmental measures". The case might come in a series of smaller accidents climaxing in a large one or even directly with a huge "breaking-news" type of accident involving loss of human life and large environmental catastrophe. The ship involved most probably will be anhy other Black Sea country (including Turkey) than Russian but then the obvious point won't be hidden.
I say no9 risks happening in the near-future (i.e. in the 2010s). I am not a prophet but then judging how things work, there is a great probability.
Complain about this comment
# 108 Chris Camp wrote:
"....But one should realise that there is now a problem in the world of Islam. The regression to religious fundamentalism has hurt every single culture it happened in. It happened in Afghanistan, it happened in Algeria and Egypt and it is happening in Lebanon and in Iran.
Something must happen from within, perhaps some sort of era enlightenment not unlike the one that happened in England, France, central Europe and North America and which was essentially the birth of Western Civilisation."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you so sure the problem is with Islam and not the West ? How is the West enlightened when it continue to sponsor the brutal repression of the Palestinian people, armed the Zionist occupiers with nuclear weapons and then have the sanctamonious cheek to talk of opposing the spread of nuclear weapons to Muslim nations ? Maybe it is time for a new enlightenment in the West.
Complain about this comment
#114 "North Korea has not been attacked over the sinking of the South Korean Cruiser because it has demonstrated nuclear weapons and escalation of any conflict is a significant risks."
I think it is more to do with their big brother China backing them up. As long as they back the NK regime, no one will touch them.
Complain about this comment
"last year we had the advent of new pro-independence groups that after millennia of non-existence remembered in 2009 to ask for independence. We get the point easily."
Obviously you don't.
Pro independence groups were active in Balochistan for quite a few years.
Main target of their (effective) attacks: Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Complain about this comment
"North Korea has not been attacked over the sinking of the South Korean Cruiser because it has demonstrated nuclear weapons "
N. Korea has NOT attacked any "Cruiser" and it does NOT have any nuclear "weapons".
[At best half a dozen of untested nuclear 'devices' which have not been weaponized.]
All Kim Dynasty has managed to demonstrate over the years is that is willing to starve millions of N. Koreans to death in order to strengthen even more its apparatus of repression (army, police).
Complain about this comment
#119 "Why are you so sure the problem is with Islam and not the West ?"
The West has its problems and is hardly perfect, however we have at least managed to leave the 10th Century behind unlike certain members of Islam.
Complain about this comment
"China scarred of a nuclear confrontation with Russia"
If PRC lost 140 million people in a nuclear exchange, it's population would shrink by mere 10%.
If Russia lost 140 million people in such an exchange...hmmm....
[Generals in both Beijing and Moscow know how to calculate.]
Complain about this comment
119. At 1:15pm on 27 Jul 2010, for a just world wrote:
Chris has his own particular views but then he is stuck with them. He wrote what he wrote having completely ignored what DT had written in his exceptional and veru informative message no66.
What you have to keep in mind is that the rise of islamic fundamendalism was actually provoked consciously by US. Conscious means conscious, not a side-effect or what Huntington called 20 years back "a clash of civilisations" in an evident manner to formulate, not to describe. You have to keep in mind that up to 1990 US was found behind almost every single islamic fundamentalist group from Indonesia to Bosnia. In Afganistan US agents were arming and training the Mujjahedins (the very same people later they named Talibans to pretend to be dessociated from them and use them as a pretext to engage militarily in the area...), in Caucasus the same with the Wahabbi Chechens, the same in Bosnia, same in Kosovo etc. etc. You might see that US (and the British doggies behind) are actually in favour of muslim fundamendalists on most cases of a clash between muslims and other cultures with Palestine actually being rather the rare exception than the rule. In Iraq, the US did not went in to fight fundamentalists but a particularly un-religious dictator, Saddam (anciently their own boy too, just like the Talibans). That leaves only Afganistan, where of course they fight against their ex-friends, themselves had armed for more than 30 years now! On the other level, US is behind the huge networks of illegal immigration of muslims in Europe and it is behind all the pro-muslim (pro-hardline islam) propaganda done around Europe so as to spread Huntington's idea about the clash of civilisations. It is the rule of divide and conquer.
But you can't divide two things that are separate. You have first to create a mess. You get the point?
Complain about this comment
121. At 1:37pm on 27 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"last year we had the advent of new pro-independence groups that after millennia of non-existence remembered in 2009 to ask for independence. We get the point easily."
"""Obviously you don't.
Pro independence groups were active in Balochistan for quite a few years."""*
Right. And what did they do? (...since I missed the point dear?).
* Balochistan independence groups simply did not exist. They were formed out of obscure regional tribal systems extremely recently in conjuction with fellow tribes on the other side of the border. It would be far too convenient for the US to have a Balochistan covering much of the Iranian and Pakistani coastline creating a wall ending all central Asian commerce ariving in the Indian ocean to ever dare think that the US has absolutely nothing to do with the suddent wish of Balochistanis to have an independent state out of the blue. They did not ask for it the last 5000 years, so what changed today? Reminds us Arabs that reminded to revolt against fellow muslim Ottomans only when the British told them so.
Powermeerkat, go back to google a fact or two.
Complain about this comment
122. At 1:47pm on 27 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"""N. Korea has NOT attacked any "Cruiser" and it does NOT have any nuclear "weapons". [At best half a dozen of untested nuclear 'devices' which have not been weaponized.]
"""All Kim Dynasty has managed to demonstrate over the years is that is willing to starve millions of N. Koreans to death in order to strengthen even more its apparatus of repression (army, police)."""
PM you really moved me with your feelings towards the suffering of N.Koreans. By the way, now that you mentioned it, would you attractive a scenario where N.Koreans decide communism does not work for them and they decide to reunite with South Korea accepting fully the S.Korean model with only 1 demand: the full retirement of the US army and all US bases from the area?
Complain about this comment
Nik;
The prospect of a military war between the US and China is just about zero. China would be insane to risk it, it's the last thing either country would want. An all out military engagement between the two countries could have over one billion Chinese dead in one hour and an end of China as an organized society forever. It just won't happen.
On the other hand, a trade war between the two countries is becoming increasingly more likely. China's latest demand that any patents and other intellectual property related to products produced in China even as the result of research performed elsewhere should belong to the Chinese is unacceptable. This will cause foreign investors to rethink their investments in China. A pullout by these investors to set up shop elsewhere and/or retaliatory actions such as imposition of high tariffs on goods made in China would be an economic disaster for China and would likely have dire internal social and political consequences for them. Likewise a blatant effort to capitalize on the actions being taken against Iran by becoming an alternative supplier would have serious consequences for China. You can be certain that the US and likely the EU have warned the Chinese government privately not to try it. If the intended result of the sanctions against Iran don't work, the options short of war will diminish to next to nil. Chinese actions to capitalize on what seems to be an opportunity would also cut those companies off from access to Western banks and could result in those enterprises being blacklisted in the west.
Complain about this comment
Re attacks in Iranian Sistan and Baluchestan...
Hossein-Ali Shahriari, the Zahedan representative to the Majlis, tendered his resignation telling the Speaker Ali Larijani that he was resigning due to the inability of authorities to maintain security in his constituency. Two more representatives from the province, Abbas-Ali Noura and Peyman Forouzesh also resign for the same reason.
Obviously Jundullah is quite a strong indigenous movement and has some following in that province. Otherwise it would not have survived harsh retaliation by Tehran ayatollahs.
[who, in turn, seem to have some following here]
Complain about this comment
"In Afganistan US agents were arming and training the Mujjahedins (the very same people later they named Talibans to pretend to be dessociated from them and use them as a pretext to engage militarily in the area..."
Do you really think you can propagate those lies with impunity?
Many a leader of original mujahedins was later murdered by al-Qaida and Talibs for the very reason they refused to turn Afghanistan into a medieval caliphate.
[Ahmed Shah Massoud of Panjshir Valley being a primary example]
"Lay it thick and something will stick."
[dr Goebbels put it more elegantly]
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
BTW. [re #131] there is no area in Iran called Balochistan.
There's however a province called Sistan and Baluchestan.
Please try to use a correct name out of respect for your native country's Persian friends- ayatollahs.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
128. At 2:42pm on 27 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
The prospect of a military war between the US and China is just about zero. China would be insane to risk it, it's the last thing either country would want. An all out military engagement between the two countries could have over one billion Chinese dead in one hour and an end of China as an organized society forever. It just won't happen.
++++
A war between China and the US is very unlikely, granted, but not for the reason you say. If there's such a war or any war between major powers nuclear weapons will not be used (which is one of the reasons against having them in the first place).
A historical parallel: chemical weapons as a WMD were invented in WW1 and were immediately used to terrible effect. But they were not used in WW2 even when the Nazi regime was facing certain alienation. The reason? They were specifically warned not to use their stockpiles of chemical WMD on pain of suffering a mass chemical weapon retaliation attack against the German population.
(Churchill warned Hitler about that early in the war when there were signs the Germans were preparing to use chemical WMDs on the Eastern front).
So I see a parallel with nuclear wmds. They were used soon upon invention in WW2 (really a war crime) but won't be in WW3 or in any war, in fact. If either of the warring parties to a conflict uses them, both of them may end up obliterated by the other nuclear powers, not directly involved in the conflict, and I am sure will be warned in advance about that possibility.
Complain about this comment
#128
MarvelouAprilusII
Time for reality check:
- China is about to overtake the US (if it has not already done so, most likely it has) in the number of patent aplpication filed by residents, so that's a game already lost.
- Ahhh, western banks and governments should be concerned about loosing access to Chinese credit than the other way around
So, I would not bank too much on the Chinese been told privately to back off and them doing so unless they get something in return.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What perennial obsessive/compulsive conspiracy theorists on the order of Nik the Greek ((lay it thick and something will stick) don't
seem to comprehend is that millions of American citizens and taxpayers, me included, would be more than happy to withdraw our troops and toys not only from S. Korea, Japan, etc., but also from Europe, leaving mighty EUSSR to fend for itself.
[65 years since WWII's end you should be able to do it, "Europeans"]
Complain about this comment
AbnormalNorman;
"124. At 2:01pm on 27 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"China scarred of a nuclear confrontation with Russia"
If PRC lost 140 million people in a nuclear exchange, it's population would shrink by mere 10%.
If Russia lost 140 million people in such an exchange...hmmm...."
Russia has more thermonuclear weapons than the US. A nuclear war between China and Russia would spell the end of China forever. It won't happen and neither will nuclear war between the US and Russia or the US and China. China is estimated to have about 20 ICBMs capable of reaching the US. The prospect of such a war is rediculous. Only a technical disaster would launch even one missile and it is very unlikely. Nobody in power in any of the three countries is suicidal. The same cannot be said for Iran or North Korea.
Complain about this comment
ElagbalusII: "The prospect of a military war between the US and China is just about zero. China would be insane to risk it, it's the last thing either country would want. An all out military engagement between the two countries could have over one billion Chinese dead in one hour and an end of China as an organized society forever. It just won't happen."
America would be just fine, would it? You really do live in a dream, buddy.
As for your second paragraph in #128, I think many will agree with me when I say you sound like someone who has grown used to enjoying the sight of their country bullying its way around the world with no one to stand up to it, and can no longer avoid the fact it no longer runs the show.
Whether a war was trade or military, I wouldn't bet against the red side coming out on top, and I think your country's politicians and citizens would do well to adopt a more respectful tone in order to avoid either sort of conflict.
Complain about this comment
CA;
I can file a patent application for a novel peanut shelling machine or a paper clip bending machine today. That doesn't mean it will be granted or be of any value if it is. It's not how many patents you file, it's what value they are.
China has overtaken the US already...in the number of people in its country. In the number of millionaires. In its growth rate. It's still a miserable largely impovrished third world country with major problems for which there seems to be no solutions. That is why so many who live their will pay whatever money they've saved and risk their lives to get out to go to Europe or America.
You don't know much about international finance do you. American banks don't obtain money from China. The Chinese banking system is extremely fragile, one reason China is reluctant to allow its currency to float higher against the US dollar. America can bash China all it wants to on that score but for China, raising the value of the Yuan or whatever they call it these days could be very dangerous for them on several accounts. Alternatively the US could devalue its own currency which would have the same effect, it's nothing China has control over. The American government is financing 800 billion dollars of its 14 trillion dollar debt, or about 6% of its long term debt by the sale of US Treasury securities to the Chinese government. It is not a problem.
Complain about this comment
So powermeerkat, you are telling us the CIA did not give weapons to the Mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 80's and did not give WMD to Saddam in Iraq??
Precisely. And If you don't want me to call you a lier you'll have to supply a specific evidence that it did.
Since it's you who make this US-hate inspired accusation.
Complain about this comment
"Whether a war was trade or military, I wouldn't bet against the red side coming out on top"
You mean if the biggest market for Chinese exports (and PRC economic growth is largely export-based), United States, have imposed compensatory tarrifs on those lead, melamine, etc., saturated goods?
Complain about this comment
" I wouldn't bet against the red side coming out on top,"
Red states have indeed a good chance of coming on top in November.;)
Complain about this comment
Re repaeted claims that U.S. supplied Saddam Hussein's regime with WMDs:
"German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons [...]Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. [...]
Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. [...]
75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy.[...]
About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.
The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.[...]
Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.
Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.
India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.
Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.
Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.
China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare."
And that's just Wikipedia (not the most extensive source on the subject).
So where is U.S. in all this?
Complain about this comment
Re: #141. Are you serious?
It would be hypocritical of a British person to knock an American for the practice as all our governments were at it back when Iran was the main enemy in the 80s, but for you to deny it altogether demonstrates an seriously blinkered view of your nation's recent history.
It was in the USA's interest that Saddam won the Iraq/Iran war and your government made sure he did. I'm not going to bother providing you with any evidence because it is common knowledge and you'll only dismiss it, but it's odd that you don't know that.
Complain about this comment
Russian President Mendevez said sanctions are counter productive. I think it is too late to stop Iran. The Arab states (namely Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE) who have sold out the Palestinians to Israel are wholly responsible for this ugly situation. If there is a nuclear war they will be among the first countries to get annihalated.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat wrote:
"someone else wrote:"So powermeerkat, you are telling us the CIA did not give weapons to the Mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 80's and did not give WMD to Saddam in Iraq??"
Precisely. And If you don't want me to call you a lier you'll have to supply a specific evidence that it did."
If it is a choice of arguing with a jingo or calling him a liar, I know which way I'd go.
Complain about this comment
"I'm not going to bother providing you with any evidence because it is common knowledge"
No, bother at all: "just facts, Ma'm".
,common knowledge' is simply a worn-out argumentum ad verecundiam.
["everybody knows", "only an idiot wouldn't be aware", etc.].
nice try, - but cigar.
BTW. You're welcome to look up also what conventional arsenal Saddam's army, air force, etc. was equipped with. You might get surprised.
Complain about this comment
Re #147
Even a two-bit lawyer would know which party is obligated to supply an evidence in any court of law: the defendant or the accuser.
And how to walk a line.
Complain about this comment
OK, mate, here you go, not that I expect you to ever acknowledge your country's role in looking after its own interests.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
132. At 3:18pm on 27 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
BTW. [re #131] there is no area in Iran called Balochistan.
"""There's however a province called Sistan and Baluchestan.
Please try to use a correct name out of respect for your native country's Persian friends- ayatollahs."""
In Greek it is pronounced Balohistan. The English way of writing it leaves me indifferent. Last time I checked anglosaxons lacked the equivalent of a French Academy for the language's grammar, let alone pronounciation of random small regions around the world.
Nontheless funny to hear you, one that tends to mispronounce pretty much most names in the S.E. Europe and Minor Asia. Eg. in past yoy referred to "Istanbul" which not only is not even the proper name of the city but even more funnily it actually means "to the city". So next time you there you go to the to the city.
Got the point?
PS: Don't argue with a Greek on the definition of things. Hven't you taken your lesson so many weeks now? Cheers!
Complain about this comment
string-a-ling;
You're just lucky the US isn't at war with Britain either militarily or in a trade war. We'd make short work of it. At least our sailors don't get captured in broad daylight in territorial waters it controls without a single shot being fired in their defense...by a navy that consists of a handful of speed boats. What a joke the British Navy is. Bratania rules the waves? What waves, the airwaves with BBC? BTW, how many years does it take a British fleet of warships to sail from the UK to the Malvinas? I think if they set out now they'd arrive just in time for those 2012 Olympic games.
Complain about this comment
Well, the US's own archive is obviously unsuitable in the eyes of the moderators, but you carry on viewing your country's history through your self-righteous, rose-coloured spectacles, my friend.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Complain about this comment
137. At 4:05pm on 27 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"""What perennial obsessive/compulsive conspiracy theorists on the order of Nik the Greek ((lay it thick and something will stick) don't
seem to comprehend is that millions of American citizens and taxpayers, me included, would be more than happy to withdraw our troops and toys not only from S. Korea, Japan, etc., but also from Europe, leaving mighty EUSSR to fend for itself."""
Good then! Only that your opinion anyway never mattered for your leading class. You are not alone in that, same over here and even worse since they are a bunch of your puppets, often your (not our) citizens like our very own "nationalised Jeffrey" the kid that learnt Greek at the age of 12 but has not yet perfected it at the age of 60.
Problem is that interlinked interests are such that not only your ruling classes do not want to disengage from various parts of the world but local leaders also do not wish to see it either not so much for fear of any external security threat but for fear of simply being pushed aside: take our Jeffrey again, what could he be other than being a US puppet? A mid-range civil clerk? Well no, he cannot even pronounce or write correctly. An actor? No, he is so bad at lying. An artist? He would be certanly a comedian, one of those people do not laugh that much during their show but only when they behave themselves.
Complain about this comment
144. At 5:57pm on 27 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
Re repaeted claims that U.S. supplied Saddam Hussein's regime with WMDs:
"German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons [...]Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. [...]
Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. [...]
75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy.[...]
etc, etc, etc...
And that's just Wikipedia (not the most extensive source on the subject).
So where is U.S. in all this?
----------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war
Amazing what you can find on wikipedia by simply typing the subject into the search window...
Complain about this comment
Ooof! Another respectful and mature contribution, MAII. Keep them coming!
You're absolutely right, however, either type of war would most certainly be bad news for Britain. Although, I would point out, should the US ever do the unthinkable and declare war on one of its oldest and most valuable allies, one would assume it'd be the aggressor, and if you think the impact of that, on the US itself, would be anything other than grievous, you're living in a video game.
I'm also a tad surprised you chose this particular time to make gloating remarks about British military deficiencies. Naturally there are a catalogue of US humiliations and errors I could raise if I were prepared to sink to that level. However, one only has to open a newspaper.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat wrote:
"Re #147
Even a two-bit lawyer would know which party is obligated to supply an evidence in any court of law: the defendant or the accuser.
And how to walk a line."
This isn't a court, the word is "prosecutor", both parties provide evidence to support their cases, and I cost considerably more than two bits.
Furthermore, you were not accused of anything. You were asked a question. Then you twisted that into a straw man accusation, with the clumsy skill of a blind man eating a hot frog.
I rest my case.
Complain about this comment
154. At 8:29pm on 27 Jul 2010, Bora wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
----------------
Bora, no need to jump over it, Istanbul comes from the Greek "Pao eis tin Polin" (I am going to the city) which Turks simply perceived as 1 word, the name of the city. The official name of the city under Ottomans was Constantiniya which was the direct translation of Constantinople and as such, grammatically and semiologically acceptable. Youngturks in search of changing it found the colloqial turkish Istanbul and used it, and then when they found out what it really meant they just came up with imaginary explanations some of which you might try to enlighten us up here and amuse us (just like the other one, Kurds being mountainous Kurds that came too from outer Mongolia - what an epic theory!).
Told you. Don't fight a game you have already lost. Go to the next issue, (your beloved turkishness is the topic of discussion), and tell us why you need to see Turkey in the EU.
PS: By the way remember the unanswered points?
1) Respect international law concerning air and sea space
2) Stop repeating war threats against neighbouring countries
3) Stop inciting other countries' muslim populations
4) Retire troops from Cyprus, retire all emmigrants, give back all property to the righful owners, indicate the place of murder of 3000 POWs and apologise for all crimes commited
5) Recognise the 3 genocides of christians of Minor Asia and the pongroms of 1950s and 60s in Konstantinople, Imbros and Tenedos and apologise for the crimes commited.
When will we have the honour of your answer? Point by point please.
Complain about this comment
string-a-ling, I have never denied US military deficiencies. However, there is a difference between most (not necessarily all) of the American and British military faults. By and large the American shortcomings are due to a lack of political will while the British shortcomings are due to incompetence. But then what else would you expect from a society of self admitted muddlers.
Complain about this comment
Poster Nik opines:
"The English way of writing it leaves me indifferent. Last time I checked anglosaxons lacked the equivalent of a French Academy for the language's grammar, let alone pronounciation of random small regions around the world."
"GREASE"?
Complain about this comment
"Amazing what you can find on wikipedia by simply typing the subject into the search window"
Suprisingly nothing documenting claims that U.S. has supplied Saddam with WEAPONS of Mass Destruction.
Unless there's no definition of " WMD" in Wiki anymore :)
P.S. Even the French have not supplied Sadam with nuclear weapons;
they simply (under Jacques Iraq) built him a reactor (at Osirak) which IAF later did a pretty good job of.
[ust like, recently, of that N. Korean one in northern Syria]
Roland-3 missiles during UN-embargo; now, that's a different story.
Complain about this comment
"I cost considerably more than two bits."
Just like equally competent Mr. Hayward?
A propos...I did not accuse the U.S. of supplying WMDs to Saddamite Iraq.
The other party did.
[a prosecutor who forgets to bring a case, doesn't have much future.
At least not in the US.]
Complain about this comment
"Recognise the 3 genocides of christians of Minor Asia and the pongroms of 1950s"
What's a 'pongrom' Nik?
Is this a correct Greek spelling of a well known Russian term?
BTW. Is ENOSIS a correct name for 'pongrom'?
Or merely an approximate Greek equivalent?
Complain about this comment
MAII wrote:
"By and large the American shortcomings are due to a lack of political will while the British shortcomings are due to incompetence."
Dardanelles campaign? Gallipoli? "A Bridge Too Far"?
Complain about this comment
Bro_Winky
I willingly admit (no need for water-boarding me off Baffin Is.) that U.S. has supplied quite a few conventional weapons even to Canada.
And over many decades.
[and of course there's this shameful long-term NORAD cooperation. :(]
Complain about this comment
Re161: Feel free to call it as you like. Anyway myself I tend to apply grease first when I put mine into a smaller aperture to put it un-explicitly so I do not mind personally the term.
PM: Learn that you can't win such a fight with a Greek. Either you like it or not it will always be him that defines things not you.
Re163: You do not have any idea how low US fell with this "mass destruction" weapons fairytale. Of course it only came as a minor lie after the 2001 lie but still, seeing Bush saying "they must be somewhere" was yet another ever low scratching the bottom... Why need all that? Just do what you know best, attack and bomb and end it there. Nobody will tell you you are meaner than you really are.
PM: Keep searching.
Re164: You offend the lifes of millions of massacred Greeks, Armenians and Assyrochaldeans. You do it for Jewish too or you are racist in such issues?
PM: Show some more respect on such issues.
Re165: The Dardanelles crossing was a plan to break into the Black Sea and aid the Russians. Now Britain wishing to give to Russians aid is simply plain ridiculus. It was all a pretext to positoin troops temporarily in the area and control the eminent collapse of the Ottoman Empire. As such they were not really interested in winning the Gallipoli campaign. They sent in their meatstock, the AZNAC, but they arrived quite early so they waited outside the Dardanelles for 1 month so that Turks had the time to bring down German generals and prepare the defenses for them.
PM, learn to read between the lines of history.
Complain about this comment
PM: You've taken about 100 lines to say nothing. Are the big gaps between your 'sentences' meant to add a touch of suspense, or something?
MAII: OK, you narked me a little. I'm sure the fact that your military's shortcomings are entirely due to a lack of political will be of great comfort to the families of the dozens of victims massacred at numerous wedding parties by your supremely trained troops.
This is not to mention the relief your news will bring the families of the British troops in Iraq slaughtered by your hot-headed, Top-Gun-wannabe, A-10 jet fighter pilots.
Perhaps John Simpson (a famous BBC war correspondent) could join us here and offer his thoughts on the subject. He was, after all, rather fortunate not to be among the many dead after the vehicle convoy he was travelling in was bombed by your lack of political will.
If Mr Simpson can't make it, perhaps we could invite your own Major General Michael Flynn to give us his opinions on why the US's attempts at counterinsurgency aren't quite living up to expectations, although I'm sure he'll agree with you (who doesn't?) and lay it squarely at the door of... the lack of political will.
Time to grow up frat boy.
Complain about this comment
"PM: Keep searching."
Don't have to, Nik.
Forgot more about the issue that you'll be ever able to learn.
["A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"]
Complain about this comment
Nik the Historian wrote:
"They sent in their meatstock, the AZNAC, but they arrived quite early so they waited outside the Dardanelles for 1 month so that Turks had the time to bring down German generals"
Such as Churchill? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Complain about this comment
"PM: You've taken about 100 lines to say nothing. Are the big gaps between your 'sentences' meant to add a touch of suspense, or something?"
No comrade Srebryakov, it's simply not to violate a copyright law.
Complain about this comment
164. At 09:29am on 28 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"What's a 'pongrom' Nik?
Is this a correct Greek spelling of a well known Russian term?"
How could it possibly be a Greek spelling, let alone a correct one, when the Greek language is written in a different, older alphabet? You did know that, right?
"BTW. Is ENOSIS a correct name for 'pongrom'?
Or merely an approximate Greek equivalent?"
It means "union" in Greek, as in the Soviet or European. What's your point?
Complain about this comment
The point was that there would NOT have been any Turkish military intervention in Cyprus without a Greek military junta's attempt to make Cyprus a part of Greece. By force.
Now, which part of this, written in Latin alphabet you don't understand?
Complain about this comment
173. At 10:29am on 02 Aug 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"The point was that there would NOT have been any Turkish military intervention in Cyprus without a Greek military junta's attempt to make Cyprus a part of Greece. By force.
Now, which part of this, written in Latin alphabet you don't understand?"
First of all, it was an invasion. Let's get that straight right from the beginning. Silly euphemisms like "intervention" or "peace operation" are misleading and unnecessary. It was an invasion, furthermore, that led to the displacement of the entire Greek population of northern Cyprus. That was your real pogrom. These days we call it ethnic cleansing.
Secondly, union with Greece was a perfectly legitimate aspiration of the overwhelming majority of the population of Cyprus, as demonstrated by the plebiscites of the 1950s. The will of the Cypriots was, of course, ignored by Britain. The coup against Makarios was indeed illegal, but so was the subsequent occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkey over the course of the next four decades. The difference is that while the junta were deposed and punished for their crimes long ago, Turkey's repeated violations of international law have been aided and abetted by apologists like you. Disgraceful.
Complain about this comment
Several yers ago the then UN general Secretary, Kofi Annan has proposed a reasonable, rational and balanced plan for a reunification of Cyprus.
Should I remind you who accepted and who rejected it?
To the General Secretary's deep consternation?
Facts are stubborn things.
Complain about this comment
175. At 4:32pm on 02 Aug 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Several yers ago the then UN general Secretary, Kofi Annan has proposed a reasonable, rational and balanced plan for a reunification of Cyprus.
Should I remind you who accepted and who rejected it?
To the General Secretary's deep consternation?
Facts are stubborn things."
Indeed. They are also rather simple. The Greeks voted against the plan because it would perpetuate the Turkish military presence and severely restrict the right of return of refugees. In a European Union of open borders and freedom of movement, it would also place a permanent quota on the number of Greeks allowed to (re)settle in the north. In short, a faux reunification that far from being "reasonable, rational and balanced" would instead legitimize an illegal occupation. The Turks, naturally, had no reason to vote against a proposal which favoured them so blatantly. Why bother taking it to the people if you won't accept their verdict? All in all, an entirely predictable outcome.
Complain about this comment
I'd simply like to point out that everybody on the outside (including UN) thought it was a "reasonable, rational and balanced plan".
And those were international officials (many from outside both: EU and US) who had no reason to be pro-Turkish or anti-Greek.
My concern as an outsider who who has no horse in this race is simply a perceived unwillingness to compromise and rather than concentrating on an unavoidable common future, relive the past.
Sometimes very ancient past, indeed.
And history teaches us that such peopleS have no future.
For the world passes them by.
Complain about this comment
177. At 6:01pm on 02 Aug 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"I'd simply like to point out that everybody on the outside (including UN) thought it was a "reasonable, rational and balanced plan".
And those were international officials (many from outside both: EU and US) who had no reason to be pro-Turkish or anti-Greek."
They didn't have to live with the consequences either. It's exceedingly easy to pontificate on the lives of others when your own life isn't at stake.
"My concern as an outsider who who has no horse in this race is simply a perceived unwillingness to compromise and rather than concentrating on an unavoidable common future, relive the past."
I think you have made it abundantly clear whose side you're on, in this and other threads. Spare us the feigned neutrality. I would also argue that nothing is unavoidable.
"Sometimes very ancient past, indeed."
But it isn't the past at all. The Turkish occupation, which has been condemned by several UN resolutions but has yet to be endorsed by any other country, continues to this very day.
"And history teaches us that such peopleS have no future.
For the world passes them by."
History teaches us the opposite, actually. Pre-modern peoples like the Greeks and the Jews have survived where so many others haven't precisely because of their reluctance to forget their past. But only time will tell.
Complain about this comment
"I think you have made it abundantly clear whose side you're on, in this and other threads. Spare us the feigned neutrality."
No, I am not neutral.
I despise Communist/Socialist mentality.
And I am very much against statism.
[not against a "welfare state" concept anymore since it's already shown itself to be bakrupt]
Greece is simply an example of a little failed country.
One of many.
[We will soon move to other examples. Hopefully.]
In a larger scheme of things it's insignificant.
Just like Cuba, North Korea or Zimbabwe.
Complain about this comment
" Pre-modern peoples like the Greeks and the Jews have survived where so many others haven't precisely because of their reluctance to forget their past. But only time will tell."
You haven't read carefully (sorry, can't use Cyrillic here)
Remembering the past is one thing; living in the past - quite another.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I meant your feigned neutrality vis-à-vis Cyprus or any other issue involving Greece or the Greeks. For a "little failed country" of no significance, it certainly takes up a large part of your time.
As for your rather nebulous "living in the past" aphorism, it may make for a good soundbite but means nothing in the real world. The Greek Cypriots voted purely on the basis of their own interests, which were not served by the Annan plan. It really is that simple.
Of course, we have yet to state the obvious fact that the Turks could solve the Cyprus problem tomorrow by complying with every relevant UN Security Council resolution and withdrawing their illegal occupation force. But they choose to live in the past, citing perceived historical injustices against the Turkish Cypriots as an excuse for their refusal to do so.
Finally, Greek isn't written in Cyrillic. Greek preceded and was the basis of both Latin and Cyrillic. (Cheers, moderators.)
Complain about this comment
"Finally, Greek isn't written in Cyrillic. Greek preceded and was the basis of both Latin and Cyrillic."
So how come nobody uses it outside Greece.
Including BBC?
Complain about this comment
183. At 11:23am on 08 Aug 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"So how come nobody uses it outside Greece.
Including BBC?"
The world's scientists would beg to differ.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS