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

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 01 Feb 2006, 08:13

Conversations with Daniel Ellsberg, Part 6
by SusanG
Sun Jan 29, 2006 at 12:40:31 PM PDT

Bush, the Next 9/11 and the Approaching Police State

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/29/144031/104

I don't think they can do much about invading Iran without a draft.

They can't invade anybody without a draft?

I'm made really uneasy by a line that I'm seeing from a lot of liberals and even from critics of the war, and that is the emphasis on the unfairness of the volunteer army and the fact that gee, isn't this a terrible situation where a few people are paying enormous risks and an enormous price, and the rest of us are paying no price.

I'll tell you why that makes me very nervous. I think that a case is being made for a draft, and I think it will happen with the approval of our Democratic leaders and many liberal columnists because of this unfairness issue. But it will not happen until there's been a major crisis, another 9/11. Or conceivably a war that came out of our air attack on Iran. So when I talk a short-term attack, an attack on Iran before a 9/11, it would be an air attack.

Post by **mikepepler** » 03 Feb 2006, 16:12

Most stuff I read about all this implies that it's the US that's falling into a trap, where it will end up worse off after a war in Iran, militarily, economically, or both. So, it was interesting to read a viewpoint that the US is setting up Iran, and would be happy to nuke its military and just move the forces in Iraq east a short distance to occupyu the Iranian oil and gas fields.

Judging from the rather frantic behind-the-scenes efforts of Russia and China in Iran, they seem to appreciate that the Iranian leadership is in for a big and probably deadly surprise. The Bush administration has not only handled its Iran dossier much more skillfully than Iraq, but also managed to set up Iran for a war it can neither win nor fight to a draw.

Full story here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e11767.htm

Post by **mikepepler** » 03 Feb 2006, 16:27

And now I've just noticed something scary. While using NewsNow to find out if the IAEA had come to a decision yet, I noticed that there are a whole load of stories in the sidebar from US news websites with headlines like:
"Iran Building Secret Nuke Tunnel: Claim"
"Report: Iran Carried Out Nuke Tests"
"Iran nuclear potential 'immediate concern'- U.S"

Granted, there's some showing the other side too, but given the masses reaction to news like this, especially after 9/11, it made me wonder if they're being softened up ready for the war...

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 03 Feb 2006, 16:41

mikepepler wrote:Most stuff I read about all this implies that it's the US that's falling into a trap, where it will end up worse off after a war in Iran, militarily, economically, or both. So, it was interesting to read a viewpoint that the US is setting up Iran, and would be happy to nuke its military and just move the forces in Iraq east a short distance to occupyu the Iranian oil and gas fields.

But I can't see why France and Germany and even Britain would want to be party to a nuclear war.

And can we really see this being done in such a way that the oil just keeps flowing?

Peter.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 03 Feb 2006, 16:49

You can see which way it's heading, can't you. I really get this sinking feeling, like in a very short time people will realise that there really is a war going on in the world, and it isn't going away anytime soon.

Post by **mikepepler** » 03 Feb 2006, 17:56

Blue Peter wrote: But I can't see why France and Germany and even Britain would want to be party to a nuclear war.

And can we really see this being done in such a way that the oil just keeps flowing?

I honestly don't know what will happen, I just posted that story as a counterbalance to the other ones we're hearing. There seem to be strong arguments for a variety of viewpoints on how it will all play out. Who knows, maybe the US will put its cards on the table by nuking Tehran and capturing the oil fields. It's certainly not going to try and install a friendly puppet democracy like it did in Iraq, as it didn't work. Given that the oilfields seem to be in a small area near the Iran/Iraq border, maybe it's not too difficult to grab them. I'm just testing the boundaries here though - this isn't what I expect to happen - I really do not know and will just wait and see

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 03 Feb 2006, 21:12

Blue Peter wrote: But I can't see why France and Germany and even Britain would want to be party to a nuclear war.

And can we really see this being done in such a way that the oil just keeps flowing?

Two good points.

It's interesting to see the apparent change in collective psychology - it's almost as if the euro nations desperately want to find some semi-solid justification so they can opt-in whole-heartedly.

Surely no one thinks any form of action whatsoever will be anything but economic chaos, so why the enthusiasm from even the most ardent peaceniks?

Very interesting indeed.

Also, I found myself afflicted by some form of this subtle shift - just recently I came to accept in my mind the real possibility of the use of tactical nuclear weapons against iran. Whilst this actually made me feel sick initially, I was alarmed to find that in short order I was contemplating various scenarios (as I often do) which involved nuclear weapons and I found I had just accepted this as another fact of life. Most odd.

Perhaps in deacdes to come we'll be viewed as a group-psychology classroom case, much like late-30's germany has been - "How did they all come to accept the use of nuclear weapons after having resisted it as taboo for decades?"

Imagine for a minute what the world would be like after a limited deployment of tactical weapons against iranian bunkers.....

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 03 Feb 2006, 21:14

I think we can dismiss any scenarios based on a "oil grab" in Iran.

Even Iraq hasn't turned out to be an "oil grab" in the strictest sense since the oil is still being sold on then open market and not just to the US/UK at cheap prices (which is my intepretation of an "oil grab")

As for the use of nuclear weapons on Iran , I think this is absolutely out of the question unless Iran uses them first.

Can you imagine the international reaction if the US started throwing nukes around , come on , this would have serious consequences. The US would lose ALL of its international allies (including the UK ) and China may very well retaliate with a whole sale clearance of her dollar reserves (bye bye US economy). They wont be bery pleased when their oil/gas gets cut off!

Look at it from the US point of view. If they invade Iran , and try and grab the oil fields then insurgents will no doubt blow the **** out of the oil facilities like in Iraq.

The subsequent loss of 4mpd will cause the US economy to crash (which is what they were trying to avoid in the first place!!)

I think a lot of pessimists are going to be very disappointed by the Iran anti climax. At the most we will see a few poxy air strikes.

Get real!

(TB bitch slaps MP, FT and AH like you would hysterical women

)

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 03 Feb 2006, 21:31

Totally_Baffled wrote: I think a lot of pessimists are going to be very disappointed by the Iran anti climax. At the most we will see a few poxy air strikes.

Personally I try to be open minded rather than pessimistic, and man will I be happy to find things don't turn out some of the ways I think are possible. High-five for anti-climax.

I wish you were the guy with your finger on the button, cos we'd have very little to worry about (still a bit tho....

)

Totally_Baffled wrote: Can you imagine the international reaction if the US started throwing nukes around , come on , this would have serious consequences.

Mass public protest, severing diplomatic links, trade boycots at least, if not some form of ad-hoc sanctions from some countries.

You name it on that score, the list you can pick from is a long one.

But what difference does it really make to the string-pullers?

It SHOULD make all the different in our system, and maybe it would (please god....) but - unlike yourself TB - I can see circumstances when it would not make ANY difference whatsoever.

On 10 Sept 2001, there were a lot of things that you couldn't do and could not happen "no way could that happen, come on" and one day later you had a queue at every recruiting office in the US and near carte-blanch from international players to do as you please.

I don't think we can dissmiss any scenearios.

Things can change.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 03 Feb 2006, 21:32

Lets consult the Great Guru. Dmitry Orlov:

Denial

Although this is a bit off the subject of Soviet collapse and what it may teach us about our own, I can't resist saying a few words about denial, for it is such an interesting subject. I also hope that it will help some of you to go beyond denial, this being a helpful step towards understanding what I am going to say here.

<snip>

The next circle of denial revolves around what must inevitably come to pass if the Goddess of Technology were to fail us: a series of wars over ever more scarce resources. Paul Roberts, who is very well informed on the subject of peak oil, has this to say: "what desperate states have always done when resources turn scarce? [is] fight for them." [ MotherJones.com, 11/12 2004] Let us not argue that this has never happened, but did it ever amount to anything more than a futile gesture of desperation? Wars take resources, and, when resources are already scarce, fighting wars over resources becomes a lethal exercise in futility. Those with more resources would be expected to win. I am not arguing that wars over resources will not occur. I am suggesting that they will be futile, and that victory in these conflicts will be barely distinguishable from defeat. I would also like to suggest that these conflicts would be self-limiting: modern warfare uses up prodigious amounts of energy, and if the conflicts are over oil and gas installations, then they will get blown up, as has happened repeatedly in Iraq. This will result in less energy being available and, consequently, less warfare.

Take, for example, the last two US involvements in Iraq. In each case, as a result of US actions, Iraqi oil production decreased. It now appears that the whole strategy is a failure. Supporting Saddam, then fighting Saddam, then imposing sanctions on Saddam, then finally overthrowing him, has left Iraqi oil fields so badly damaged that the "ultimate recoverable" estimate for Iraqi oil is now down to 10-12% of what was once thought to be underground (according to the New York Times).

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 03 Feb 2006, 22:36

Personally I try to be open minded rather than pessimistic, and man will I be happy to find things don't turn out some of the ways I think are possible. High-five for anti-climax. I wish you were the guy with your finger on the button, cos we'd have very little to worry about (still a bit tho.... )

You are open minded, I just go a little heavy with my language. Sorry

It SHOULD make all the different in our system, and maybe it would (please god....) but - unlike yourself TB - I can see circumstances when it would not make ANY difference whatsoever.

This is my central point though, ok the protests of the masses, sanctions ec may not make any difference (unfortunately) , but IF the US starts throwing nukes around then IT HAS VERY VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE STRING PULLERS!

For example:

1. Bush would be condemned as the WORST president of the US ever.
2. Petrol Rationing and economic armaggeddon would get the Republicans voted out forever.
3. The US would collapse into an economic shit storm that would potentially dissolve the country. Now, if you believe the "corporations and fat cats are in control", then even they dont want this , because they would lose all there wealth and power.

There is simply too much to lose. I acknowledge that TPTB dont give a flying monkey toss about you and me, but when it threatens a financial system that KEEPS THEM IN THE EASY MONEY/LIFE, they aint going to encourage Bush to nuke or invade Iran.

Everyone would be a loser, no one benefits. The US would be f*cked, the Chinese who rely on their export demand would be f*cked, big business would be f*cked, I would be f*cked , my mum would be f*cked , my favourite teddy bear would be f*cked , freddy f*cker the f*cking f*ckorontus would be f*cked!!!

Ok drunken rant finished now

Sorry

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 04 Feb 2006, 08:36

All this speculation is a bit silly really.

TB, your anger might just come back to haunt you if the PTB do decide to attack Iran. You could end up eating your words.

No one on this forum wants Iran to be invaded it's just that the US is making a strong case for doing so. Just look at what John Bolton is up to. You have to wonder why they are going to so much effort to stir up trouble. It could just be that military action is their goal. Then again it might not be their aim. Only they know.

But we must not forget that everyone is in the same the same pot. All countries rely on each other for financial continuity. If America does invade Iran it won't necessarily mean economic meltdown for them because no other country will want that either. In other words, no one will object too strongly because it will not be in their interest. They may voice their opinion and threaten some action but trade will need to be maintained. The US knows this, the UK knows this, Russia knows this, China knows this and so on. Likewise, any country will be foolish to start threatening nuclear action. It's in nobody's interest to do that.

In which case, it could just be that the US will carry on with its ultimate objective.....which is?....well we don't know do we?

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 04 Feb 2006, 10:14

This baby is waiting for a full scale test since some ten years:

The Iranians have it. The Chineese have it. If it works as intended, the US carrier groups are more or less useless. The US have everything to loose and nothing to gain from provoking a situation which would give legitimity to a full scale test of this little thing.

More here and here

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 04 Feb 2006, 11:10

The US doesn't need to use nukes. They have already said they will support Israel should there be a conflict with Iran. Israel would probably use the nukes.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... r+us&meta=

Also, Chirac recently announced that France would consider using nuclear weapons against a country that "threatens the guarantee of our strategic supplies". Could he be referring to withholding oil or disrupting passage of tankers?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... arch&meta=

Whilst the oil output from Iraq is lower than it was pre-war - it is being sold in US dollars. Shortly before the war, Iraq started selling in euro's,

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... llar&meta=

which is also what Iran is planning to do in March
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... urse&meta=

I don't think we will need to wait too much longer to see how things will play out, because it's going to happen by the end of March.

Isn't it a bit of a coincidence that Bin Laden has also just popped up his head to say hello and threaten an attack against the US / Europe.

There's almost too much happening to keep up.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 04 Feb 2006, 11:38

grinu wrote:
Isn't it a bit of a coincidence that Bin Laden has also just popped up his head to say hello and threaten an attack against the US / Europe.

Amazing really... and just before Bush's State of the Union Address after a prolonged absence. Anybody would think Bin Roven..sorry, I mean Laden... was a Republican.