Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran

by **Byrne** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:12 pm

The article below is from <a href="http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=496587" target="top">mathaba.net</a>. If anyone is breaching Nuclear regulations it is the US, not Iran. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Nuclear Politics Iran may, indeed, be attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. However, it also has a "legitimate" interest in developing nuclear power, since its own oil reserves are already post-peak and it aims to continue in its role as an energy exporter. Iran is a signatory in good standing to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has openly informed the International Atomic Energy Agency of its intentions as requried by the Treaty. However, Iran's presumed attempt to acquire nuclear weapons is only the politically acceptable excuse for America's threats. The real danger is that Iran will lay down the foundation for a post-hegemonic international energy industry in which America is merely one of many players. If Iran is, in fact, developing nuclear weapons, it is doing so to acquire a deterrent against exactly this kind of American encroachment. Indeed, recent world events have only enforced the notion that a nation's successful efforts to acquire nuclear weapons confer respect and status, not the opprobrium it deserves. India, a growing economic power that possesses a nuclear arsenal and refuses to sign either the NPT or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), has just been rewarded for its efforts by US President Bush, who has agreed to "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India." This is a straightforward violation of the NPT, which forbids signatories from exchanging nuclear materials or support with non-signatories. If Iran really is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, is it any wonder why? Look at the advantages that having nuclear arsenals have given to US allies India, Pakistan, and Israel, all of which have benefitted immensely from a playing field tilted in their favour by their ability to project devastating power. As official hysteria about Iran's intentions escalates in volume and intensity, remember the real force undermining the moral authority of the NPT: the big nuclear 'have' countries that still refuse either to apply the ban consistently or to take any meaningful steps of their own toward "general and complete disarmament" - ostensibly the NPT's ultimate goal. Ironically, America originally invaded Iraq - a poor, defenseless country - partly to send a message to other oil producing countries not to rock the petrodollar system, but the real message for small countries is that they need to present a credible deterrent threat or risk being ignored and/or invaded.<hr></blockquote> Google News with Iran + Bourse get 26 links, do the same with Iran + Nuclear get 11,200 links. The Iran Oil Bourse is THE evident reason for the uptalk on a forthcoming war/action etc. by the US. The subject needs publicising far & wide. I'm doing my bit, commenting on blogs etc. - keep track of the subject on blogs with blog search http://technorati.com  "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes” - Mark Twain

by **Reikimg** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:52 pm

What better way to drum up support for an invasion of Iran than scaring the crap out of the public about nuclear weapons.The Bush Regime could'nt be more transparent in its tactics,and with no need to worry about lying(these once might have been a problem, but no more)the Bush cabal has the green light to do what ever it wants. * Isnt the real reason for a "solution" to the Iran "problem" all about securing a monopoly for Saudi oil? Geographicly Iran has the misfortune of being sandwiched by 2 major pipelines (or will be once the one being planned to run through Afghanistan is built),and these will need to be secure. Also consider this: Saudi Arabia has been paranoid about a persian invasion since its inception,and finally has enough influence, not to mention one hell of a mean lap dog in the U.S.,to finally rid itself of the persian menace. * The whole thing stinks to high heavan.

by **Byrne** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:05 pm

Reikimg, Nope, it's definitely the proposed Iranian Bourse. See <a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html" target="top">www.energybulletin.net/7707.html</a> for details.

by ir » Mon Jan 02, 2006 5:28 pm

thank you anon and alicethecurious, and best regards from the middle east. Alice let me take your message on, cause I want to be as precise as i possibly can. I don't think Israel/US are the only culprit states in the world (I am sure there is a host of atrocities all over, occupations, mass murders and oppression). Also, I am hardly the fan of Iranian fundamentalist regime, because I am not enthused by religious fanaticism. I met enough refugees and immigrants from Iran to know that the revolution was nothing to be happy about, in terms of human rights. (although, under the circumstances of the Shah/US corrupt regime, perhaps there was no other choice AT THE TIME). -- However, I am entirely opposed to the belligerent policy of my government, and its reliance on the USA's power and oil interests. I feel no animosity between the Iranian people and the Jews. more so, I never sensed any animosity between the Iraqi people and even Israel (let alone the Jews of the world). the war against Iraq was a first rate crime against humanity, against the middle east and against peace. My only hope, same goes for the Palestinians, is that the people, the victims of the crimes, realize that we, as much as they, are hostages of our military elite, that serves a certain elite in the USA and Europe (seeking to secure their oil supply and financial hold on the region). Namely, that we, the people of the region have by now learnt to think for our selves, even if this is only true for a few of us now, and only in the private quarters of home, and our hearts. -- I believe that some time ago, not sure though if in this board, I shared a dream I had during the Iraq war. In the dream I am kidnapped by an elite military unit of the IDF, although I am pregnant, and being forced to jump off an airplane over Iraqi borders. I a pleading with them to letme to, but they harshly refuse and mock me. so, I am jumping with my parachute, fat and pregnant and land on a hillside, near a military unit of the Iraqi army. I am spotted by the soldiers and I am sure they will kill me. But one soldier comes near me, and as I roll down the hill, he helps me get the parachute off and hands me water. Then he looks at me, and his eyes, speechlessly say it all - his eyes tell me that he knows what happened to me, and he feels awfully sorry for me. He has a loving look, and he sends me off, and prays for my safety, and then goes back and joins his platoon. Nobody interferes, they just look. -- The entire situation is tragic. My personal perspective has changed over the years, and while i had a false sense of hope or empowerment in being an agent of transformation in my country, at this point I think the only valid response for a Jewish israeli who cannot see the reason in these wars, is to seek another home, outside israel. When one's own government is one's enemy, and when the situation bears no solutions, there is not other choice. Its tragic because my family has been in palestine long before Israel and even before Zionism. It is symbolic, in my mind, that the people who belong to the place are ousted by the government, and perhaps replaced by others who have are more paletable for the militant government and its racist policies. -- I don't think there will be peace in our region in the forseeable future, because not enough inviduals see through the lies and the propaganda. Those who do, are forced to collaborate or leave. The will of "the people" is now meaningless all over the world.

by **Reikimg** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:43 pm

well just for the record i do agree that the Iranian Oil Bourse plays a big role. I think that there are alot more factors than just the Oil Bourse. -------- Chomsky put something out on Znet blog today reguarding this subject <a href="http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/ahmadinejad_iranian_nuclear_weapons/">blog.zmag.org/index.php/w...r_weapons/</a>

by **Byrne** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think that there are alot more factors than just the Oil Bourse<hr></blockquote>I agree, Reikimg. I found <a href="http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html" target="top">_this_</a>just earlier, which has some interesting points (I've quoted in it's entirety):<blockquote>Quote:<hr>THE US AND IRAN Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program. It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006. German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago -- long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays. The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets -- a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work. According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission. DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations. In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year. According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question. The DDP report attributes the possible escalation to the recent anti-Semitic rants by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose belligerent verbal attacks on Israel (he described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> have strengthened the view of the American government that, in the case of the nuclear dispute, there's little likelihood Tehran will back down and that the mullahs are just attempting to buy time by continuing talks with the Europeans. The German wire service also quotes a high-ranking German military official saying: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late." Despite the wave of recent reports, it's naturally difficult to assess whether the United States has any concrete plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. In a January 2005 report in the New Yorker, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that clandestine American commando groups had already infiltrated Iran in order to mark potential military targets. At the time, the Bush administration did not dispute Hersh's reporting -- it merely sought to minimize its impact. In Washington, word circulated that the article was filled with "inaccurate statements." But no one rejected the core reporting behind the article. Bush himself explicitly stated he would not rule out the "option of war." How great is the threat? So is the region now on the verge of a military strike or even a war? In Berlin, the issue is largely being played down. During his inaugural visit with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington last week, the possibility of a US air strike against Iran "hadn't been an issue," for new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a Defense Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE. But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin. Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims. Instead, the paper noted that the meeting between the CIA chief and Erdogan lasted longer than an hour -- an unusual amount of time, especially considering Goss had previously met with the head of Turkey's intelligence service, the MIT. The Turkish media concluded that the meetings must have dealt with a very serious matter -- but they failed to uncover exactly what it was. Most media speculated that Erdogan and Goss might have discussed a common initiative against the PKK in northern Iraq. It's possible that Goss demanded secret Turkish intelligence on Iran in exchange. Regardless what the prospects are for a strike, there's little chance a US air strike against Iran would be launched from its military base in the Turkish city of Incirlik, but it is conceivable that the United States would inform Turkey prior to any strike. Skepticism in Ankara Until now the government in Ankara has viewed US military activities in the region at best with skepticism and at worst with open condemnation. At the beginning of 2003, Ankara even attempted to prevent an American ground offensive in northern Iraq against the Saddam regime. A still-irritated Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly blamed military problems in Iraq on the fact that this second front was missing. Two weeks ago, Yasar Buyukanit, the commander of the Turkish army and probable future chief of staff of the country's armed forces, flew to Washington. After the visit he made a statement that relations between the Turkish army and the American army were once again on an excellent footing. Buyukanit's warm and fuzzy words, contrasted greatly with his past statements that if the United States and the Kurds in northern Iraq proved incapable of containing the PKK in the Kurd-dominated northern part of the country and preventing it from attacking Turkey, Buyukanit would march into northern Iraq himself. At the same time, Ankara has little incentive to show a friendly face to Tehran -- Turkish-Iranian relations have long been icy. For years now, Tehran has criticized Turkey for maintaining good relations with Israel and even cooperating with the Israeli army. Yet despite those ties to Israel, Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israeli outbursts were reported far less extensively in Turkey than in Europe. Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his recent recovery from a mild stroke. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to the task. The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation here is that -- at least when it comes to the Kurdish question -- Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. But if the United States moves forward with an attack against Iran, Turkey will have no choice but to jump on board -- either as an active or passive partner. It's a scenario that has Erdogan and his military in a state of deep unease. After all, even experts in the West are skeptical of whether a military intervention against nuclear installations in Iran could succeed. The more likely scenario is that an attack aiming to stop Iran's nuclear program could instead simply bolster support for Ahmadinejad in the region. <hr></blockquote>

by **Floyd Smoots** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:26 pm

I do not disagree with most of the posts above. I just WISH most of you people who are posting here on R.I., would LEARN the difference between Biblical Christians, and FAUX-CHIRSTIANS, which you bander about as the "Christian Right", here in the Unitied States uv Amerika. The few real Christians of us left here in the world do NOT applaud Zionism, the political movement, do NOT wish death & destruction upon our "so-called" enemies, and truly WANT a new world where everyone can live in peace and harmony. Unfortunately, we DO believe in the (for us, returning Messiah, and, for our Jewish bretheren, the Soon Coming Messiah), so, basically, we do not think that the problems of this world, brought to us all by the Satanists, and their minions, will prevail. But that's just our opinion, we think we're right!!! Love, Uncle Floyd, AKA, Saint Alex the Foolish, circa 3rd Millennium, a.D.

by **GDN01** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Was that your response to the build-up of the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Don't worry about all this, the Lord is coming and will save us (the righteous) someday - just get right with God and Jesus and don't worry about these earthly problems... I'm sure the loved ones of the tens of thousands of innocent people of Iraq who have been killed as a result of this war will try to keep this in perspective. And will thank those of you who believe you are right for doing nothing, while waiting for your God to come back, and watching their lives destroyed by our bombs. I believe you are wrong. And not only that, I believe that what you are suggesting is immoral and puts the blood of every dead person killed in this war, and the next, on your hands.

by **Floyd Smoots** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:42 pm

I thought the war was a bad idea then, and I think it is an even Worse Idea, now. A friend at work asked me when the U.S. body count would be enough (not to mention all those innocent Iraqis). My answer was, and will be, "How many names are on that black wall in D.C. from the Vietnam War?". I certainly don't want to see that, but, from the point of view of the PTB, they would probably "see" that bet and "raise" it by another twenty percent or more. So, GDN01, what do you want Me to do about it, besides letting everyone I know, that It's Wrong, and What are YOU doing about it? My point of view, is that there is NO human agency who can bring about Peace On Earth, only the one that I believe to be our Creator. Please feel free to tell me WHOM you believe is really, in the end, going to Stop The Madness! Peace and Love, Brother Floyd

by **Reikimg** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:52 pm

Floyd, I think i can distinguish between a biblical christian from a faux christian.I might be wrong though so here it goes..... Bush in your opinion(and mine) is a "FAUX".My reason for this is because he is crazier than a shithouse rat(to use your own parlance).I have a certain ammount of respect for you,because i believe you have alienated some in your own faith with some of your liberal views. You my friend have taken a stand, kudos. Although i could be wrong, maybe you think Bush is the bees-knees,if this is the case disreguard above statements. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=reikimg>Reikimg</A> at: 1/2/06 8:52 pm

by **GDN01** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:56 pm

How many thousands of dead does he need? He needed the death of his own son - how many others does he need? He has the names on that black wall you mention. He has the names of over a thousand more now, from the U.S. alone. He has hundreds of thousands from Iraq. So what is your creator sitting back for? Does he have a quotient to fill? I don't believe God is responsible for this mess. I believe humans are. And I believe humans must act to bring it to an end. And I believe it is the ultimate failure of humanity to sit around waiting for someone's God to intervene while people are being killed by man-made weapons. I've been very involved in the anti-war movement. I do what I can with the means I have, which is not much. But I don't sit around "not worrying my pretty little head" (to paraphrase Barb Bush) over such things. I've orgainzed many events, teach Conscientious Objector workshops, go to protests, slept in the ditch at Camp Casey. I'm working with a group to bring a lawsuit against our local school district for how they handle the "opt out" of Leave No Child Out of the Military plan of our govt. I do more than say it's wrong and wait for the end times to arrive.

by **gloworm** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:13 pm

Maybe we're just a bunch of bloggers and hopefuls that IT doesn't happen. I personally believe in God's Omnipotence, All Seeing, All Intelligent, All Wise, and All Present, and All Merciful being. If the thread were on God and War perhaps some of the posts would be more relevant, however, here's relevancy. PROCLAIM A FAST. I for one see IT-this IRAN CONFLICT a-coming and gearing up. In Jesus's words – some devils can only be exorcised with fasting and prayer. I would indeed revel if I could actually SEE all the devils conspiring to bring on this destruction and death. You are all so eloquent...I feel inadequate. I don't see them but I sense facist corporatism gnarling at Iran's_bourse-- nuclear capacity I doubt—we're on to that trick (we being probably a minute % of media-based world view) As was often the case in Israel's O.T. History – a fast after the fact of some war-destruction-invasion, it would seem to behoove us to make this supplication to avert the fact. Ah, that takes faith! IR-- does/is Israel doing this? And, by the way, YOU -Ir are in my prayers—a real person to me in the middle of this dung heap. Why doesn't one of those nice NGO (non-Gov.Org) for 'interfaith dialog' bodies proclaim such a day for the whole world – that is among us who still have no worry about a next meal? Because they are part of the problem! OK,,,I HAVE to go chop some wood. Since as of yet I have not come up with a Rig.Intuit. Find on a Google search and if anyone else wants to do a FAST, we'd better first do a chat meet to figure out a what? - a webpage?. FCA

Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran

Let's help get the shoes on

The Saudi Factor

Re: The Saudi Factor

middle easterners

Re: The Saudi Factor

German news Article

Getting A Handle On It........

Re: Getting A Handle On It........

Re: Getting A Handle On It........

Re: Getting A Handle On It........

Then what is your creator waiting for?

Re: Then what is your creator waiting for?--Answer....

Who is online