Iran warns of 'consequences' if referred to UN re uranium

GD · Post by GD » 27 Oct 2005, 15:25

Anything that comes out of the foreign office is usually the exact opposite of the truth. It should be no surprise that Blair is ruling nothing out.

More from Scott Ritter:
Traprock peace center - US at War with Iran.

Ritter said the United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran since last summer. He said people would be stunned to know that the U.S. is at war with Iran. "There hasn't been a national debate and the president hasn't declared war."

He said it all sounds very familiar. "The war in Iraq began in September of 2002, not March of 2003 like most would think," said Ritter. "And the Bush administration fabricated intelligence to back up its decision to go to war. Later, it manipulated the results of Iraq's elections," he said.

"We're being told a lot of lies and the media is following blindly and parroting information," said Ritter.

(MP3's of his excellent speech available to download from there.
It was the reports from this guy and William Rivers Pitt that kept me glued to www.truthout.org since 3 years ago).

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 27 Oct 2005, 17:28

grinu wrote:It's like watching someone slowly build a wall, block by block, that will spell war when it's done.

Hmmm, "The build-up to war"

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 27 Oct 2005, 21:47

That's a much better way of putting it- I had the picture but couldn't explain.

Seriously tho I'll be surprised if we're not involved in some sort of ruckus with Iran within the next 6months to a yr. Syria may possibly be involved too. It would end up getting very very nasty

YossarianUK · Post by **YossarianUK** » 27 Oct 2005, 22:48

Once again it will involve the countries who have WMD accusing another country of having WMD and going to war to get rid of them. And once again the accused will not actually have the WMD capability described.

Its all very Orwellian - listen to the Government, reverse it, and you're close to the truth.

The recent actual intelligence showed that Iran were at least 10 years from nukes. One day the US/UK will actually (and possibly accidentally) tell the truth, we won't believe them, they'll go to war anyway and it will really hit the fan.

In the meantime, we will continue depressing the Gulf's oil production by keeping the war(s) going.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 28 Oct 2005, 08:19

Say for a minute that the real motive is oil (as if.....) and that the real plan is to capture the oil-reach regions of Iran close to the Iraq boarder.

Instead of all this bullsh1t threats and counter-threats, if the US/Uk govs came out in public and said "peak oil is real, our plan to sustain the std of living for yanks and brits is to sieze oil rich regions of the world - support this or your std of living is going to BOMB" I think that we might be surpirsed at the level of support for such action.

Opposing the Iraq war was easy, since it had no personal impact on most brits either way - if it's a clear choice between significant personal impact and war in another part of the world, I think you'd get a bigger percentage supporting war.

I'm not saying every brit would back it - I know I'd rather sit in the dark than support an oil-war, but I suspect we'd all be suprised at the level of support for a "them or us" conflict.

Self-sacrifice, in any form, is alien to most brits.

What a damning indictment that is eh....

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 28 Oct 2005, 09:24

Things continue to escalate, http://www.itv.com/news/index_88340.html

"Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon responded by saying that Iran should be expelled from the United Nations. "A country that calls for the destruction of another people cannot be a member of the United Nations."

I agree completely with this statement.

Tony Blair said, "Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that, having a nuclear weapon?"

I agree completely with this concern. Some intelligence say 10 years, but I would not like to rely on that information.

Lets get real people, Iran are a fecking nightmare - it would do us all well not to make excuses for them.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 28 Oct 2005, 09:41

Also, read this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 384024.stm

Surely nobody can say that what Irans's President is saying is part of a conspiracy?!

newmac · Post by **newmac** » 28 Oct 2005, 09:54

It is true that the comment as it is being reported sounds terrible. I would like to be able to see the whole speech to be able to put in it in context - anyone know if the whole speech is available?

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 28 Oct 2005, 09:58

So what if Iran has a nuclear weapon, the US, UK and Israel could bomb them and the whole world several thousand times over.

War is evil, make no excuses for such action. Never.

Let's be careful of all the hype. Can we trust that the West is being told the truth about where this statement by Iran's leader came from and in what context it was made?

In my view this is a propaganda ala John Bolton et al. That's what he's in the UN for, to stir the pot.

As for Ariel Sharon's response, kettle and black are words that come to mind.

revdode · Post by **revdode** » 28 Oct 2005, 10:27

snow hope wrote:Also, read this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 384024.stm

Surely nobody can say that what Irans's President is saying is part of a conspiracy?!

Nope sadly Iran's president was spewing the usual anti Israel hatred probably to impress and internal audience who still see Jewish near neighbours as a threat. Proving that either he has an inability to see the consequences of his words and actions, he is as dumb as Bush or both. It gives those who are trying to crank up the pressure on Iran just what they needed.

From the article -

In a rare rebuke, Mr Annan reminded Iran that, as a UN signatory, it had undertaken not to threaten the use of force against another state.

This is spot on the mark, it's just a shame that Mr Annan is usually so quiet on these matters.

What to do about it is a harder question, expulsion from the UN will probably make things worse and may just push the whole situation over the edge. Attack Iran and we kill tens or hundreds of thousand for what really, because someone said something stupid, because they may get nukes someday?

People with Nukes scare me, Iran doesn't scare me anymore than Israel, anymore than Pakistan or India and certainly no more than the USA who have proved willingness to use then and changed their rules of war to allow them to use them more easily in the future.

But seriously this isn't really about bombs is it? It's about oil and control of an oil rich region energy and damn the consequences.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 28 Oct 2005, 10:29

What do you guys think the likely outcome will be?

Realistically , air raids on their nuclear facilities seem the only military option.

Surely an invasion is beyond our means? This would need a US draft , and it would take months to train them up?

Sanctions could be an option , but then are we really going to deny 4 mpd of oil to the market!?

newmac · Post by **newmac** » 28 Oct 2005, 10:46

A few things about Iran
Iran hasn't invaded any country. The US and GB have (plenty).
Iran stated aim is to use nuclear electricity. US and GB have huge nuclear weapon stockpiles.
The nuclear non-proliferation act calls upon nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals - the US and GB are in breach.
Brazil's nuclear program is similar to Iran. Should we invade them too?
Attacking Iran would be a mother of a mistake - take note of the way the Iranians fought in the Iran - Iraq war. Iraq is a playground in comparison.
Only one country has used nuclear weapons in anger.
Only one country has changed its doctrine with regard to first use of nuclear weapons and of thier use against non nuclear countries.
Isreal has been allowed to develop a nuclear program without sanction.

My point here is not to say that Iran is innocent, but to highlight that thinks aren't as simple and clear as our governments tell us.

Isreal before and after PO
Whether you think that Israel morally should allow an independent Palestine in all the west bank and gaza or whether it morally has the right not to doesn't really mater, for their continued existence the Isreali government really needs to placate the whole arab world.

Isreal is currently pretty much only able to survive due to massive financial and mitlitary "aid" from the US. With the passing of Peak Oil and inevitable depression that follows, this aid will dry up.

If Isreal is still in a position where it is in conflict with its neighbours then it will either be destroyed or will destroy. I really don't want to see either of these.

There goes the middle east.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 28 Oct 2005, 11:06

I believe that the West should stop meddling in the whole affair. However, this is all about resources, oil and gas, as well as the need to gain strategic occupation of the Middle East by whatever means, so meddling is what is going to happen. The propoganda machine is well underway.

The context under which the statement was made is revealed slightly more here although I trust the BBC no more than anyone else. However this makes more sense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 384264.stm

Has anyone read Matt Simmons 'Twighlight in the Desert'? For those who haven't, he gives a short history of modern Saudi Arabia and the ruthlessness of King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud who formed SA in the 1930's. (King Abdul's family still rules SA today). After WWII Abdul met with Roosevelt and although the meetings were friendly, he made it clear that a Jewish state would never be accepted by SA or anyone else in the Middle East. Roosevelt agreed never to let Israel happen - which the US soon forgot when Roosevelt died. Crises over oil since then have largely stemmed from conflicts with or over Israel so why should Iran's comments now be any different to King Abdul's view back in 1945? Why does it mean we have to attack Iran? Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons - after all we do and we've attacked more countries in the last 200 years than Iran has. Is it because we are told Iran is full of loonies? Could it have anything to do with the media and our fascination for gossip. (Children are burnt in front of their parents, men are beheaded in the streets, women are raped, soldiers are blown apart, all because of gossip!). Let's pray that nothing happens and let us not be drawn into accepting any of it.

Bill Hicks come back.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 28 Oct 2005, 11:26

Can I add that when I was at school I had a very good friend who was (and no doubt still is) Iranian. He and is family were some of the nicest people I have ever met - always feeding me and looking after me well when I went to their house. They came to the UK during the Iran Iraq war. The stories they used to tell me of the US propaganda machine at work in Iran and Iraq during that war made my blood boil. Needless to say that he and his family weren't very pro-US.

GD · Post by GD » 28 Oct 2005, 12:04

Iran might be a feckin nightmare, but they?re a feckin nightmare partly of our creation?
Ditto Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Gen Pinochet, Saudi Arabia?

Basically what I?m saying is the world would probably be a nicer place if WE kept our hands off other countries.

Moot point anyway, because it?s not like we?ll ever have a say in the matter in this autocracy?

As for the propaganda machine, I picked up a copy of ?Web of Deceit? by Mark Curtis recently on recommendation of someone in this forum. He does an excellent demolition job of the propaganda. Also gets the blood steaming!!!