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

[Bozzio]

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.

Good point.

[Bozzio]

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.

OSB is probably dead. A 6ft 5" man with kidney failure should have been easy to spot by now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/s ... 44,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 5468.shtml

http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html

[StephenCurran (Stef)]

It Has Happened

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... B17672.htm

[StephenCurran (Stef)]

By the way
I'm Stef
And it's been a "pleasure" going over your forum this past few months

[Joe]

I'm sure I read somewhere that there's a difference between "reporting" and "referring" a state to the UN Security Council, with a referral being the more serious of the two. Has anyone else seen this or did I dream it?

The Aljazeera piece seems to be using the terms intechangeably - is this just lazy journalism?

[RevdTess]

By the way
I'm Stef
And it's been a "pleasure" going over your forum this past few months

Hi Stef, welcome to powerswitch. Was there anything you found particularly interesting from going over the archives?

[Ballard]

I'm sure I read somewhere that there's a difference between "reporting" and "referring" a state to the UN Security Council, with a referral being the more serious of the two. Has anyone else seen this or did I dream it?

No, you are correct, it was the only way they could get Russia to support the move.

Is it me or is anyone else getting a profound sense of deja-vu over this? I mean this seems exactly like the run-up to the last conflict.

Today I?ve heard no less than eight news pieces linking I?ran and N-weapons. (What about North Korea and N-weapons? no mention of that in the news).

I can only assume that the softening-up process is now fully underway, I can see no reason for all this focus except as a method to prepare the general public for M-Action.

[fishertrop]

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

It's on-paper reputation does appear fearsome, but I would not underestimate the overall US technology lead - as anti-ship missles have improved so have seaborne missle defense systems.

Generally the thumb-rule appears to be quantity-launched rather than the quality. In the cold war the US always feared the Soviet air-lauched anti-ship missles because even tho they were technologically inferior the Soviet tactics involed massive deployment against US navy assets and even with defenses havings a then 90%-odd sucess rate the remaining 10%-of-a-big-starting-number still equaled very heavy losses.

The US would love only a handful of "competitor" missles to be lauched and all of them to be defeated.

[StephenCurran (Stef)]

By the way
I'm Stef
And it's been a "pleasure" going over your forum this past few months

Hi Stef, welcome to powerswitch. Was there anything you found particularly interesting from going over the archives?

Of course

The "Post Peak" Nightclub seemed really cool
I am a bit of a ceili man myself.
(Back home they call me the Footstamper)

I've been well impressed and some what awed by the knowledge and commitment of those seeking to "prepare"- so that was good reading.

For my own part, I am a bit interested in the poloitical as well as the numbers side and hopefully will be contributing some small analyses based on Mr Skrebowski's and Jack Zagar's numbers, (heard via Global Public Radio) in the near future.

Shalom
Peace
Salam

Stef

[fishertrop]

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.

Don't take this the wrong way TB, but you seem to be thinking too much "inside the box", inside the current paradigm.

I agree with you 100% if we are talking about the current paradigm - at least as we see it.

But if you add an event, another 9/11 or something that works the same way and you can just as easy have:
1. Bush would be hailed as the BEST president of the US ever (for responding decisivly to the new-pearl-harbour).
2. Petrol Rationing and economic armaggeddon are seen as an Iranian action, galvanising the public and would get the (backboned) Republicans voted in forever.
3. The US would collapse into an economic shit storm that would potentially dissolve the country. This would be seen as a direct result of Iranian action and the public would willingly endure the harship while burning a few iranian flags. Now, if you believe the "corporations and fat cats are in control", then even they dont want this in the short term because it impacts quarterly earnings but in the long term it makes the public more motivated to accept harsh conditions and means in the long term secure dollar hedgmon and cheap oil. And the police-state that was invoked as an emergency measure is backed by the public and the long term implementation of a corporatocracy is real benifit. And TPTB had recognised that the current system had a finite life anyway and they knew they needed to do something sooner or later.


At this point I'll just restate I'm not in the "armagedon will occur presently" camp, more that I consider a number of "impossible" scenarios to be far more viable than many would think.

[Totally_Baffled]

Don't take this the wrong way TB, but you seem to be thinking too much "inside the box", inside the current paradigm.

I agree with you 100% if we are talking about the current paradigm - at least as we see it.

I agree. I try and think outside the box as well, but I cannot see how some of the scenarios you describe would come about. Lets go through those below

But if you add an event, another 9/11 or something that works the same way and you can just as easy have:

I dont believe the US government anything to do with 9/11. Incompetence yes, direct involvement no. So unless the Iranians fo something completely dumb like nuke Israel or sink a US battle fleet, then I cannot see one happening.

1. Bush would be hailed as the BEST president of the US ever (for responding decisivly to the new-pearl-harbour).

His approval ratings are at an all time low , and the US public has barely been exposed to the potential fall out if the US went into Iran.

I believe that the US took on Iraq because they could (more or less) shield the US voter from the worst effects.

2. Petrol Rationing and economic armaggeddon are seen as an Iranian action, galvanising the public and would get the (backboned) Republicans voted in forever.

Absolutely no way.

1. Jimmy Carter. Didnt he ask the US public to endure a little sacrifice on the energy front. Look what happened to him!

2. Bush approval ratings during a temporary spike in gasoline prices (due to hurricanes) were plummeting. I mean, how on earth can you blame the president for Hurricanes wiping out the GOM infrastructure!? (although I can understand the backlash due to the slow response to NO)

3. The US would collapse into an economic shit storm that would potentially dissolve the country. This would be seen as a direct result of Iranian action and the public would willingly endure the harship while burning a few iranian flags.

LOL , I dont think this generation would endure any such hardship without a backlash against whoever is in power.

Now, if you believe the "corporations and fat cats are in control" then even they dont want this in the short term because it impacts quarterly earnings but in the long term it makes the public more motivated to accept harsh conditions and means in the long term secure dollar hedgmon and cheap oil. And the police-state that was invoked as an emergency measure is backed by the public and the long term implementation of a corporatocracy is real benifit. And TPTB had recognised that the current system had a finite life anyway and they knew they needed to do something sooner or later.

So all of a sudden we are crediting the TPTB with some long term strategy and thinking? Nope I dont buy it!

At this point I'll just restate I'm not in the "armagedon will occur presently" camp, more that I consider a number of "impossible" scenarios to be far more viable than many would think.

I know , and I recognise that. I just feel that Bush and certainly Blair are totally snookered on the Iran affair to do anything other a few bombings.

Turn on the BBC news, there is shitstorm around the 100 death of UK soldier. Imagine Blair (and Labours) popularity if that amount are dying every week because we have decided to take on Iran.

Also , there is non stop talk of "when we bringing the troops home?", imagine if Blair or Brown , turn around say, "sorry guys , not only are they staying there , we are sending out another 25,000 troops who will be in Iran/iraq/Afghanistan forever!"

Besides, we seem to be scaling back forces in the area let alone gearing up for an invasion.

Anyway, good discussion FT If I am wrong , then I will have to eat a huge wedge of humble pie!

[MacG]

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

It's on-paper reputation does appear fearsome, but I would not underestimate the overall US technology lead - as anti-ship missles have improved so have seaborne missle defense systems.

Generally the thumb-rule appears to be quantity-launched rather than the quality. In the cold war the US always feared the Soviet air-lauched anti-ship missles because even tho they were technologically inferior the Soviet tactics involed massive deployment against US navy assets and even with defenses havings a then 90%-odd sucess rate the remaining 10%-of-a-big-starting-number still equaled very heavy losses.

The US would love only a handful of "competitor" missles to be lauched and all of them to be defeated.

Mach 2.2 is hell of a lot. At sea level. Almost a kilometer per second. And maneuvring wildly on the final approach. The ruskies designed it specifically to take out the carriers. And nobody has had a chance to test the thing live yet. Just imagine the consequences if it actually works. The guys in Bejing will suddenly act with a lot of confidence for example...

Simply to many risks involved

[grinu]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0494245.htm

MUNICH, Germany, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Rich ... ic weapon.

[mikepepler]

MUNICH, Germany, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Richard Perle, a key architect of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, said on Saturday the West should not make the mistake of waiting too long to use military force if Iran comes close to getting an atomic weapon.

Is Perle thought of as one of "the crazies"? Or should that be f***ing crazies, according to this 2004 story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 34,00.html

A furious row has broken out over claims in a new book by BBC broadcaster James Naughtie that US Secretary of State Colin Powell described neo-conservatives in the Bush administration as 'f***ing crazies' during the build-up to war in Iraq.

[Bozzio]

Is Perle thought of as one of "the crazies"?

Perle is a definite crazy and one of the founders of the PNAC, 'Project for a New American Century'.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

The PNAC have made a case for going to war with Iraq and Iran since the late 90's. Blows TB's idea that the PTB have had no long term strategy out of the water.