Muppets planning Armageddon.

[Park Life 71]

"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

 

"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."

 

But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

 

"An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.

 

"With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development."

 

The Iran policy of Mr McCain, whom Mr Bolton supports, was "much more realistic than the Bush administration's stance".

 

Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran "without preconditions" while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.

 

William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks against Iran. "If the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out," he said.

 

Last week, Israeli jets carried out a long-range exercise over the Mediterranean that American intelligence officials concluded was practice for air strikes against Iran. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said this was an act of "psychological warfare" that would be futile.

 

"They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. They [israel] have a number of domestic crises and they want to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these empty slogans."

 

He added that Tehran would deliver a "devastating" response to any attack.

 

On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle East into a "fireball" and accelerate Iran's nuclear programme.

 

Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. "The key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

 

"That doesn't end the problem but it buys time during which a more permanent solution might be found.... How long? That would be hard to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction."

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...n-predicts.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From what I can make of all that, Israel has an eye on the American elections with regard to a sneak attack on Iran. If it looks like Obama winning they will get a strike in while Bush is still in power or something.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Park Life

[Fop 1]

I dunno one the one hand it's a bad idea in many ways, on the other hand allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons (which is clearly what they are after) is a horrendously bad idea.

 

Basically once Iran get them there'll be a nuclear "terrorist" attack on the West within 15 years IMO.

[Park Life 71]

I dunno one the one hand it's a bad idea in many ways, on the other hand allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons (which is clearly what they are after) is a horrendously bad idea.

 

Basically once Iran get them there'll be a nuclear "terrorist" attack on the West within 15 years IMO.

 

Not sure I follow that logic.

 

Cause you could have said the same about Pakistan. They've had nukes for 10 years now.

[Guest alex]

The sooner Bush is replaced the better. Not saying that whoever comes in will provide an instant panacea to the problems in the Middle East but you at least expect diplomatic relationships to improve somewhat.

I have to agree in general with Fop about Iran and the idea of them getting nuclear weapons fills me with a sense of dread.

At the same time the overwhelming military superiority which Israel has over the rest of the region, aided and abetted by US foreign policy is a huge part of the reason for the Iranians wanting their own nuclear weapons.

[Happy Face 29]

It's amazing to me how presidents still don't resign, no matter how low their stock falls, unless criminal charges are actually brought against them.

 

After Watergate, you'd have thought things might have cleaned up in politics, seems they just legalised campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal wiretapping and secret slush funds instead.

[snakehips 0]

As Bob Marley sang, "Have no fear for atomic energy, as none of us can stop the time". Not so much singing about nuclear weapons, but the problem we have is the same thing i.e. fear. Fear that the Iranians will launch an attack on Israel and set off a chain reaction throughout the world. We can only hope that if they do get 'the bomb', they will refrain from using it forever. The knowledge that Iran would be completely obliterated if they did attempt to start firing first must surely make them completely against using it. I guess they see having 'it' as a bargaining chip, rather than a justifiable weapon to use.

 

Let's not forget, however, that there are many, many, Iranians who wish to have a better relationship with 'the west'. There is a significant educated class In Iran that would very much like for their country to become far less isolated as they are now.

[Park Life 71]

As Bob Marley sang, "Have no fear for atomic energy, as none of us can stop the time". Not so much singing about nuclear weapons, but the problem we have is the same thing i.e. fear. Fear that the Iranians will launch an attack on Israel and set off a chain reaction throughout the world. We can only hope that if they do get 'the bomb', they will refrain from using it forever. The knowledge that Iran would be completely obliterated if they did attempt to start firing first must surely make them completely against using it. I guess they see having 'it' as a bargaining chip, rather than a justifiable weapon to use.

 

Let's not forget, however, that there are many, many, Iranians who wish to have a better relationship with 'the west'. There is a significant educated class In Iran that would very much like for their country to become far less isolated as they are now.

 

Agree. Our future is surely to be inclusive with countries like Iran. Britain for one has enjoyed excellent trading relationships with Iran and historically Pakistan as well. Yes there is a significant 'Liberal thinking' middle class in Iran, many of course educated in Britain and the U.S.

Countries like Iran can I hope develop in the same way as say Turkey and feel part of things in a way that only dialogue and understanding brings.

[Ketsbaia 0]

As Bob Marley sang, "Have no fear for atomic energy, as none of us can stop the time". Not so much singing about nuclear weapons, but the problem we have is the same thing i.e. fear. Fear that the Iranians will launch an attack on Israel and set off a chain reaction throughout the world. We can only hope that if they do get 'the bomb', they will refrain from using it forever. The knowledge that Iran would be completely obliterated if they did attempt to start firing first must surely make them completely against using it. I guess they see having 'it' as a bargaining chip, rather than a justifiable weapon to use.

 

Let's not forget, however, that there are many, many, Iranians who wish to have a better relationship with 'the west'. There is a significant educated class In Iran that would very much like for their country to become far less isolated as they are now.

 

What he said.

 

Ahmadinejad may look like a Arab Roy Keane but unlike the Irish one I don't think he's a mug. If they get nuclear weapons, which will take another 5-6 years at the very least, it'll simply be to wave at the west and the US in particular in the hope it'll make them think twice before dicking around in the Middle East.

[Happy Face 29]

I shouldn't worry. It's all being monitored on the big board.

[Fop 1]

I dunno one the one hand it's a bad idea in many ways, on the other hand allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons (which is clearly what they are after) is a horrendously bad idea.

 

Basically once Iran get them there'll be a nuclear "terrorist" attack on the West within 15 years IMO.

 

Not sure I follow that logic.

 

Cause you could have said the same about Pakistan. They've had nukes for 10 years now.

 

Aye and there may well eventually be a government that there that gives everyone cause to regret it.

 

The difference with Iran is their government is fucking scary - you give Ahmadinejad the power of Bush and WW3 would be days away.

 

 

 

 

Worse Iran understand the global spin game and aren't opposed to playing both side (see Iraq - Iran are and have been for years supplying most of the arms and explosives there to keep the carnage going whilst publicly putting on a concerned persona).

 

What worries me with Iran is they'll try that sort of game on a bigger scale, give a group like Al Qaeda access to a nuclear weapon enjoy the resultant carnage (as they sail a ship into a harbour, or even just off the coast of a city somewhere, and detonate) and say something like "see this is why we needed nuclear weapons to protect ourselves".

 

Basically it's not a case of why would Iran covertly supply terror groups, it's a case of why on earth would they not?

[Fop 1]

As Bob Marley sang, "Have no fear for atomic energy, as none of us can stop the time". Not so much singing about nuclear weapons, but the problem we have is the same thing i.e. fear. Fear that the Iranians will launch an attack on Israel and set off a chain reaction throughout the world. We can only hope that if they do get 'the bomb', they will refrain from using it forever. The knowledge that Iran would be completely obliterated if they did attempt to start firing first must surely make them completely against using it. I guess they see having 'it' as a bargaining chip, rather than a justifiable weapon to use.

 

Let's not forget, however, that there are many, many, Iranians who wish to have a better relationship with 'the west'. There is a significant educated class In Iran that would very much like for their country to become far less isolated as they are now.

 

Agree. Our future is surely to be inclusive with countries like Iran. Britain for one has enjoyed excellent trading relationships with Iran and historically Pakistan as well. Yes there is a significant 'Liberal thinking' middle class in Iran, many of course educated in Britain and the U.S.

Countries like Iran can I hope develop in the same way as say Turkey and feel part of things in a way that only dialogue and understanding brings.

 

 

Don't mistake wishful thinking (the US has a massive liberal Persian population) with the reality of the current government there.

 

The problem is NOT that they are ruthless (there's plenty like that Zimbabwae, N Korea), the problem is they are ruthless AND smart (which can be seen in how they've played the nuclear game, pretending to give concessions to buy time, but never actually doing so - masterful, but incredibly dangerous).

[Park Life 71]

I dunno one the one hand it's a bad idea in many ways, on the other hand allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons (which is clearly what they are after) is a horrendously bad idea.

 

Basically once Iran get them there'll be a nuclear "terrorist" attack on the West within 15 years IMO.

 

Not sure I follow that logic.

 

Cause you could have said the same about Pakistan. They've had nukes for 10 years now.

 

Aye and there may well eventually be a government that there that gives everyone cause to regret it.

 

The difference with Iran is their government is fucking scary - you give Ahmadinejad the power of Bush and WW3 would be days away.

 

 

 

 

Worse Iran understand the global spin game and aren't opposed to playing both side (see Iraq - Iran are and have been for years supplying most of the arms and explosives there to keep the carnage going whilst publicly putting on a concerned persona).

 

What worries me with Iran is they'll try that sort of game on a bigger scale, give a group like Al Qaeda access to a nuclear weapon enjoy the resultant carnage (as they sail a ship into a harbour, or even just off the coast of a city somewhere, and detonate) and say something like "see this is why we needed nuclear weapons to protect ourselves".

 

Basically it's not a case of why would Iran covertly supply terror groups, it's a case of why on earth would they not?

 

True lies?

[Fop 1]

I dunno one the one hand it's a bad idea in many ways, on the other hand allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons (which is clearly what they are after) is a horrendously bad idea.

 

Basically once Iran get them there'll be a nuclear "terrorist" attack on the West within 15 years IMO.

 

Not sure I follow that logic.

 

Cause you could have said the same about Pakistan. They've had nukes for 10 years now.

 

Aye and there may well eventually be a government that there that gives everyone cause to regret it.

 

The difference with Iran is their government is fucking scary - you give Ahmadinejad the power of Bush and WW3 would be days away.

 

 

 

 

Worse Iran understand the global spin game and aren't opposed to playing both side (see Iraq - Iran are and have been for years supplying most of the arms and explosives there to keep the carnage going whilst publicly putting on a concerned persona).

 

What worries me with Iran is they'll try that sort of game on a bigger scale, give a group like Al Qaeda access to a nuclear weapon enjoy the resultant carnage (as they sail a ship into a harbour, or even just off the coast of a city somewhere, and detonate) and say something like "see this is why we needed nuclear weapons to protect ourselves".

 

Basically it's not a case of why would Iran covertly supply terror groups, it's a case of why on earth would they not?

 

True lies?

 

Don't forget Tom Clancy (and others) wrote about using planes as weapons long before 9/11 (probably more than a few people wondered why that wasn't taken more seriously before 9/11).

 

The thing with genuine nuclear weapons as terror weapons (even just dirty bombs) is you don't need necessarily be nearby to have the desired effect or even need to cause the maximum potential amount of carnage.

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I'd say Iran has the most skilled politicians (and by politicians I mean profession liars and spin doctors) in the world at the moment...... which is the strange thing when I see people that hate Bush but don't mind Ahmadinejad.

 

 

Ahmadinejad is just a much more intelligent, extremist and ruthless version of Bush and is likely to be around for longer.

[Park Life 71]

I dunno one the one hand it's a bad idea in many ways, on the other hand allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons (which is clearly what they are after) is a horrendously bad idea.

 

Basically once Iran get them there'll be a nuclear "terrorist" attack on the West within 15 years IMO.

 

Not sure I follow that logic.

 

Cause you could have said the same about Pakistan. They've had nukes for 10 years now.

 

Aye and there may well eventually be a government that there that gives everyone cause to regret it.

 

The difference with Iran is their government is fucking scary - you give Ahmadinejad the power of Bush and WW3 would be days away.

 

 

 

 

Worse Iran understand the global spin game and aren't opposed to playing both side (see Iraq - Iran are and have been for years supplying most of the arms and explosives there to keep the carnage going whilst publicly putting on a concerned persona).

 

What worries me with Iran is they'll try that sort of game on a bigger scale, give a group like Al Qaeda access to a nuclear weapon enjoy the resultant carnage (as they sail a ship into a harbour, or even just off the coast of a city somewhere, and detonate) and say something like "see this is why we needed nuclear weapons to protect ourselves".

 

Basically it's not a case of why would Iran covertly supply terror groups, it's a case of why on earth would they not?

 

True lies?

 

Don't forget Tom Clancy (and others) wrote about using planes as weapons long before 9/11 (probably more than a few people wondered why that wasn't taken more seriously before 9/11).

 

The thing with genuine nuclear weapons as terror weapons (even just dirty bombs) is you don't need necessarily be nearby to have the desired effect or even need to cause the maximum potential amount of carnage.

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I'd say Iran has the most skilled politicians (and by politicians I mean profession liars and spin doctors) in the world at the moment...... which is the strange thing when I see people that hate Bush but don't mind Ahmadinejad.

 

 

Ahmadinejad is just a much more intelligent, extremist and ruthless version of Bush and is likely to be around for longer.

 

 

I love the way your playing the discursive card in such a carefree and ill-judged manner. All bollocks as well.

 

 

You're saying dinnerjacket is brighter than Bush. Nuke them I say!

Edited June 25, 2008 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

You'd like to think most right-minded people would despise both of them though. I suppose there's a certain amount of hero-worship of anyone standing up to Bush. No matter how odious they are.

[Park Life 71]

You'd like to think most right-minded people would despise both of them though. I suppose there's a certain amount of hero-worship of anyone standing up to Bush. No matter how odious they are.

 

Alternatively one might stand back and see that in their own way they are both playing to 'an audience'.

[Fop 1]

I dunno one the one hand it's a bad idea in many ways, on the other hand allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons (which is clearly what they are after) is a horrendously bad idea.

 

Basically once Iran get them there'll be a nuclear "terrorist" attack on the West within 15 years IMO.

 

Not sure I follow that logic.

 

Cause you could have said the same about Pakistan. They've had nukes for 10 years now.

 

Aye and there may well eventually be a government that there that gives everyone cause to regret it.

 

The difference with Iran is their government is fucking scary - you give Ahmadinejad the power of Bush and WW3 would be days away.

 

 

 

 

Worse Iran understand the global spin game and aren't opposed to playing both side (see Iraq - Iran are and have been for years supplying most of the arms and explosives there to keep the carnage going whilst publicly putting on a concerned persona).

 

What worries me with Iran is they'll try that sort of game on a bigger scale, give a group like Al Qaeda access to a nuclear weapon enjoy the resultant carnage (as they sail a ship into a harbour, or even just off the coast of a city somewhere, and detonate) and say something like "see this is why we needed nuclear weapons to protect ourselves".

 

Basically it's not a case of why would Iran covertly supply terror groups, it's a case of why on earth would they not?

 

True lies?

 

Don't forget Tom Clancy (and others) wrote about using planes as weapons long before 9/11 (probably more than a few people wondered why that wasn't taken more seriously before 9/11).

 

The thing with genuine nuclear weapons as terror weapons (even just dirty bombs) is you don't need necessarily be nearby to have the desired effect or even need to cause the maximum potential amount of carnage.

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I'd say Iran has the most skilled politicians (and by politicians I mean profession liars and spin doctors) in the world at the moment...... which is the strange thing when I see people that hate Bush but don't mind Ahmadinejad.

 

 

Ahmadinejad is just a much more intelligent, extremist and ruthless version of Bush and is likely to be around for longer.

 

 

I love the way your playing the discursive card in such a carefree and ill-judged manner. All bollocks as well.

 

Well the "good" thing is we will see.

 

(I don't for a second believe Iran would ever use a nuke in anger - they are far too smart. But a replication of the Iraq tactics could benefit them in many ways - domestically and internationally).

 

 

Out of interest do you believe that Syria weren't building nuclear facilities?

[Guest alex]

You'd like to think most right-minded people would despise both of them though. I suppose there's a certain amount of hero-worship of anyone standing up to Bush. No matter how odious they are.

 

Alternatively one might stand back and see that in their own way they are both playing to 'an audience'.

Which doesn't make either of them any more likeable imo.

[Fop 1]

You'd like to think most right-minded people would despise both of them though. I suppose there's a certain amount of hero-worship of anyone standing up to Bush. No matter how odious they are.

 

Alternatively one might stand back and see that in their own way they are both playing to 'an audience'.

 

Yup again Ahmadinejad is much, much better at it - look at the utter master-stroke they pulled with domestic public opinion over Iran's nuclear future.

 

Ok controlling the media like that do gives them a big advantage over someone like Bush in the USA, but still it's very impressive (the likes of Blair and Campbell [and I guess now Brown] can only look on wishfully).

[ChezGiven 0]

Its all Israel's fault anyway, you should have heard Obama's speech to the Israeli lobby, sounds like they are the ones who control US foreign policy in the region.

 

On another note, my personal axis of evil : I raq'd one up, I Korea'd out of control and I ran away from my problems.

[Fop 1]

You're saying dinnerjacket is brighter than Bush. Nuke them I say!

 

The thing is it would be very, very difficult to get a nuclear weapon or nuclear material into the UK (impossible maybe), but get one into the English Channel, or off the coast? Much more likely.

 

 

The fact is nuclear weapons as a genuine military option are almost obsolete - no country would use them pro-actively as they are a death wish.

 

But using them in other more subvert ways is something I think we'll eventually see, much like 40 years ago islamic suicide bombers were practically unheard of.

 

 

Frankly I'd always rather have a madman or a dim extremist in charge of a country than an intelligent person with an agenda and a plan.

[Park Life 71]

You'd like to think most right-minded people would despise both of them though. I suppose there's a certain amount of hero-worship of anyone standing up to Bush. No matter how odious they are.

 

Alternatively one might stand back and see that in their own way they are both playing to 'an audience'.

Which doesn't make either of them any more likeable imo.

 

Quite.

[Park Life 71]

You're saying dinnerjacket is brighter than Bush. Nuke them I say!

 

The thing is it would be very, very difficult to get a nuclear weapon or nuclear material into the UK (impossible maybe), but get one into the English Channel, or off the coast? Much more likely.

 

 

The fact is nuclear weapons as a genuine military option are almost obsolete - no country would use them pro-actively as they are a death wish.

 

But using them in other more subvert ways is something I think we'll eventually see, much like 40 years ago islamic suicide bombers were practically unheard of.

 

 

Frankly I'd always rather have a madman or a dim extremist in charge of a country than an intelligent person with an agenda and a plan.

 

 

Not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying Muslim countries/ Arab countries are more likely to proliferate or use nukes? Historically of course that isn't the case.

 

India, Pakistan, Israel and South Africa all developed their nukes with the help of the U.S.A, Russia and the U.K.

[Park Life 71]

Its all Israel's fault anyway, you should have heard Obama's speech to the Israeli lobby, sounds like they are the ones who control US foreign policy in the region.

 

On another note, my personal axis of evil : I raq'd one up, I Korea'd out of control and I ran away from my problems.

 

 

And quite some lobby it is too.

[Park Life 71]

You're saying dinnerjacket is brighter than Bush. Nuke them I say!

 

The thing is it would be very, very difficult to get a nuclear weapon or nuclear material into the UK (impossible maybe), but get one into the English Channel, or off the coast? Much more likely.

 

 

The fact is nuclear weapons as a genuine military option are almost obsolete - no country would use them pro-actively as they are a death wish.

 

But using them in other more subvert ways is something I think we'll eventually see, much like 40 years ago islamic suicide bombers were practically unheard of.

 

 

Frankly I'd always rather have a madman or a dim extremist in charge of a country than an intelligent person with an agenda and a plan.

 

 

Should we engage with Iran or should we continue to back them into a corner?

 

 

One of the main reasons the Soviets fell is when we started offering financial and economic carrots and oking bank loans to Gorbachev iirc.