Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Dubai Real Estate Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Car Lift in Dubai Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

Nuclear War against Iran


shafique HP - I'm in the UK, will be in Dubai in just over 2 weeks. It's early evening here :)
Andyba by Michel Chossudovsky
The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.
Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".
Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.
Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets." Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).
In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.
(James Petras, Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005)
The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.
"Shock and Awe"
The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.
The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon. The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately Washington will decide when to launch the military operation.
US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.
Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq
(See at
In November, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy".
Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness (See our analysis below)
While Asian press reports stated that the "fictitious enemy" in the Global Lightening exercise was North Korea, the timing of the exercises, suggests that they were conducted in anticipation of a planned attack on Iran.
Consensus for Nuclear War
No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union.
There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin. Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic Alliance and the UN Security Council. This consensus pertains to the conduct of a nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states are now tacit partners in the US/ Israeli military project. A year ago in November 2004, Israel's top military brass met at NATO headquarters in Brussels with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria involving the US, Israel and Turkey. and in February 2005, Israel participated in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.
The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a "threat to World Peace".
The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/ anti- globalization agenda.
The "surgical strikes" are presented to world public opinion as a means to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
We are told that this is not a war but a military peace-keeping operation, in the form of aerial attacks directed against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians"
The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.
The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.
According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons:
Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of 21000 and 15000 tons (
In other words, the low yielding mini-nukes have an explosive capacity of one third of a Hiroshima bomb.
The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons:
'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox,' said Kristensen. (Japan Economic News Wire, op cit)
We are a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own propaganda.
The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation of more useable nuclear weapons."
The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of World Peace.
"Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechai Vanunu,
The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).
Space and Earth Attack Command Unit
A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "
In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction."
To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.
JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia.
Since November, JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of readiness" following the conduct of relevant military exercises. The announcement was made in early December by U.S. Strategic Command to the effect that the command unit had achieved "an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons." The exercises conducted in November used "a fictional country believed to represent North Korea" (see David Ruppe, 2 December 2005):
"The new unit [JFCCSGS] has 'met requirements necessary to declare an initial operational capability' as of Nov. 18. A week before this announcement, the unit finished a command-post exercise, dubbed Global Lightening, which was linked with another exercise, called Vigilant Shield, conducted by the North American Aerospace Defend Command, or NORAD, in charge of missile defense for North America.
'After assuming several new missions in 2002, U.S. Strategic Command was reorganized to create better cooperation and cross-functional awareness,' said Navy Capt. James Graybeal, a chief spokesperson for STRATCOM. 'By May of this year, the JFCCSGS has published a concept of operations and began to develop its day-to-day operational requirements and integrated planning process.'
'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its preparedness to execute its mission of proving integrated space and global strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of STRATCOM,' he added without elaborating about 'new missions' of the new command unit that has around 250 personnel.
Nuclear specialists and governmental sources pointed out that one of its main missions would be to implement the 2001 nuclear strategy that includes an option of preemptive nuclear attacks on 'rogue states' with WMDs. (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005)
CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022
JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.
The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid).
CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)
The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.
The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.
CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. it does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops.
CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations.... The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)
The Role of Israel
Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs.
The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also
) .
Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html
Extension of the War
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
At present there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following last year's agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
More recently, Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the acquisition of Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October, with Moscow`s collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit." (see Chris Floyd)
The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months.
Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah’s beard. What’s more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)
Ground War
While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria.
In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises as well as deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:
Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.
[According to] ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military manoeuvres in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.
Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran's borders in winter.
The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel's special military units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.
Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of cooperating with America in espionage operations against its neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab press has been publishing various reports about Ankara's readiness or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about its soil and air space being used for action against Iran.
(E'temad website, Tehran, in Persian 28 Dec 05, BBC Monitoring Services Translation)
Concluding remarks
The implications are overwhelming.
The so-called international community has accepted the eventuality of a nuclear holocaust.
Those who decide have swallowed their own war propaganda.
A political consensus has developed in Western Europe and North America regarding the aerial attacks using tactical nuclear weapons, without considering their devastating implications.
This profit driven military adventure ultimately threatens the future of humanity.
What is needed in the months ahead is a major thrust, nationally and internationally which breaks the conspiracy of silence, which acknowledges the dangers, which brings this war project to the forefront of political debate and media attentiion, at all levels, which confronts and requires political and military leaders to take a firm stance against the US sponsored nuclear war.
Ultimately what is required are extensive international sanctions directed against the United States of America and Israel.
taken from:
arniegang blimey andy can we come back/ comment in 2 weeks after reading :wink: :wink: Liban Andy, I am in no means in love with the Islamic Republic. However, this copy & paste is pretty far fetched. Nuclear war against Iran will not happen and cannot happen. If it starts, it will spell global armageddon because I doubt many Muslim nations will keep silent in this, ESPECIALLY, if Israel is involved.... But interesting theories nonetheless :) shafique Liban, Hypothetically though, if a nuclear attack was made, what could/would the 'muslim world' do? There is precious little unity at the moment - nothing was done to curb the Taliban, nothing is being done to help the Muslims in Chechnya, nothing was done to help the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo (the Americans saved the Muslims there!) Nothing was done by the Muslims when Iran and Iraq were at war. Very little was done by Muslims when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the Americans etc went in to restore democra... oops sorry, the monarchy of Kuwait. Come to think of it, what have the Muslim nations done to help Palestinians? What do you think the Muslim nations will actually do - or even want to do? Will it be that muslim people will riot and be killed by muslim police trying to quell the demonstrations?? Wasalaam, Shafique (Just playing devil's advocate here, but these are serious questions and I would like to hear what you think could happen) HP It is best for Iran to shut his mouth atleast for sometime . It is stupidity to challenge US . I dont think if Iran can survive for more than 1 or 2 weeks after the attack. The stupidity of Sadaam and Mullah omar destroyed two countries and my eyes cant see the third one :roll: Just be like Pakistan , always wid G.W.Bush , we are keeping the threat of al-qaeda alive and in thats way ,we are getting favours from US and west :P shafiq sweetheart , why do u not sleep ,it must be quite late in Dubai :roll: kanelli
Don't forget that Muslims also aren't helping protect the Iraqis from a smaller group of Muslims who are trying to keep the country destabilised for their own political purposes.
I had made a similiar point about the lack of unity of Muslims in another thread and no one tackled the issue, and supposedly I was yet again a victim of Western media lies. Let's see if your comments are better received. :)
The article posted is totally BS - there is no way that any country would attack Iran with nuclear weapons, especially Israel. The only way this would happen would be if Iran launched nuclear weapons at other countries first, or they had their finger on the button poised to launch - forcing other countries to launch first in defense. Anyone who believes the propaganda in the first post of this thread needs a head check. MaaaD thats all consipiracy theory... no nukes will be used in the middle east, a nuke in tehran will show up in the water in tel aviv, and maybe even further west. plus it will contaminate the oil which is being exported to the rest of the world. a nuke in the middle east might just be the beggining of the end of the world .. and maybe thats a good thing. Chocoholic Have to agree with Kanelli, there's no way, can you imagine the devastation? Plus no-one would use nukes for something like this, it would be suicide - for everyone. Liban The only way the Muslim world will rise up is if Israel does that nuclear strike. Fact is that the Muslim Street will blow up. The rage will be beyong control and the petty dictatorships that we have currently based on personality cults, western propped rulers, or american imposed "democracy" will fall and that is what we should fear. Do not forget the Pakistan has nukes and Saudi can buy nukes tomorrow from Russia if it has to. Both Algeria and Egypt have nuclear knowhow but have abandoned their nuclear projects for now (Algeria even had reactors in the 80s). Anyways, doomsday will spell the end of the world and Judgement Day....

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
bsorc I should say that its good Iran is standing up for it, Iran's first priority should be to rid Middle East of US side Leaders, I cant imagine the destruction if such a war occurs, the league of nations was much better than United Nations, hey whats United Nations, are they a store? "I have seen from my memories that destroying others by fear ultimately results in your own destruction So i told them to be clever & cautious...not scared" - The Giver Liban The UN is an institution at the mercy of 5 so-called "powers". These WWII "victors" plan and conceive everything and have a mouth peice called Kofi. The zionist empire is the puppet master of this "organization". kanelli I think that Arabs and Muslims should take responsibility for their own leaders and the divisions between their countries and religious sects. Blaming the West, the US, or "Zionist" puppet-masters (whoever they are and whatever that means) is just one big lousy excuse. Most leaders in the world have a vested interest in who leads countries that are important to them strategically - it is nothing new. It isn't only a Western, US, Israeli phenomenon to interfere in another country's politics. Just look at what the insurgents are doing in Iraq, and what the Syrian government did to Lebanon's Hariri. So, stop blaming the convenient scapegoats and spend more time and political effort helping to clean up your own backyard. kanelli Liban, your views are simplistic. The US has been made the world police and they are a huge trading partner for the entire globe. I'd hardly compare them to Iran. Call whoever you want Zionist or whatever terms you like to use, but the BASIC HUMAN FACT REMAINS - the Israelis/Jews all over the world don't deserve to be wiped off the planet. kanelli
This is nothing but bullshit Islamic propaganda. shafique Liban - I'm still not sure whether you've explained what you think the muslim nations will do specifically. I agree that there will be widespread popular protests, but what will Saudi Arabia actually do? Who will actually order the nuclear bombs from Russia - the troops that are now being overseen by US troops on Saudi soil? I personally can't see a will to do anything but pander to the West and worship the petrodollar. I'm waiting to see whether Iran will be successful in selling oil in Euros and seeing how long it takes for the US to put a stop to that. Saddam started selling oil in Euros in 2000, now all Iraqi oil is sold in dollars which are deposited in the good ol US of A. All reports say that Iran are at least 2 years away from nuclear weapons, whilst N Korea, Pakistan and India (not to mention Israel) all have nukes already. Pakistan is hardly a democracy at the moment... hmmm Liban - I am genuinely interested in hearing what you think will happen. Wasalaam, shafique kanelli
Yes, money and big business is what makes the world go round, unfortunately, even when it is to the detriment of world peace and environmental protection.

What does democracy have to do with it? The US didn't go into North Korea to stop nuke production because they'd get their butts kicked and South Korea wants to keep the peace. Israel, India and Pakistan didn't seem to be a blip on the US radar, maybe because they aren't deemed a threat to the US? I have no clue why nothing was done to prevent them from getting nukes. I'd have to do more reading on this. Pakistan is a US ally against the Taleban and Al Qaeda, so why would the US try to strip them of their nukes? Iran is a danger and it can be stopped from developing nukes, so that is why the US and other countries would like to ensure that Iran doesn't develop nukes.
So, do some of you think that just because the other countries mentioned have nukes, that it is okay for yet more countries to start developing them? Because other countries weren't stripped of their nukes, as they should have been, it is now okay for others to develop nukes? Should the US and Russia just distribute a nuke or two from their aresenal to every country on this planet so everyone will have their own nukes? It would certainly solve the problem, wouldn't it. :roll: arniegang I think it would be more beneficial to debate Shafs post re "what would the muslim world do" The points raised are very interesting and i to would be interested for our more vocal forumers to respond to it. Lets leave the Isrealli element out. shafique Some people say that the nuke thing is a pre-text to stop Iran selling oil for Euros, which will be disastrous for the US economy (as it will mean that the dollar will no longer be backed by oil, historically it was backed by gold, now the only thing it is effectively linked to is oil. If left to 'float freely', the US mega-debt and ailing economy would mean significant devaluation). Are nukes for Iran the Weapons of Mass Destruction for Iraq?? (There is the old joke about why Rumsfeld was adamant Saddam had WMD's --- Rumsfeld still had the receipts :) ) Also, just on a point of international law - Iran has thus far done nothing illegal! Cheers, Shafique
arniegang You are probably aware Shaf, the dollar is well strong against sterling at the moment. I cant work out whats goin on, the Us Economy is well iffy at the moment. Do you think they are spurting fire and water to keep the dollar artificially strong? sorry to digrese mate shafique Arniegang, I did a Google for Iran Oil Euro and this article was thrown up: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8354.htm Can't vouch for the website or the author(s), but it makes interesting reading. Cheers, Shafique arniegang Very interesting Shaf indeed. I wonder if there is more to my casual observation about the dollar being kept artificially high at the moment. The US trade figures released last week coinsidentally were appaling. I was expecting a huge drop in the value against Sterling this week and it hasnt happened. The the nuke thing appeared in the news. Interesting kanelli You didn't answer my question Shaf. Do you think that Iran should have the right to possess nukes just because the US and others didn't successfully stop other countries like Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea from obtaining/developing them?
Well, Iran's president makes statements about how a population of people deserve to be wiped off the planet. Don't you think that might make people concerned? Many people outside of the US would probably tell you that they feel the world will not be safe if Iran develops nuclear weapons. Right now there are people very uncomfortable with North Korea having them. [EDIT - There are, as well, many people worried about the US having nuclear weapons!]
Well, we all know that there were no WMD's, but little George W. did finish the job that his daddy started didn't he? Yes, oil was likely involved to a degree, but pushing democracy and taking revenge were most likely the other ingredients in the mix.
True, Iran hasn't done anything illegal yet. I personally support Iran's right to develop nuclear power plants for powering the nation, but developing nuclear weapons is unacceptable. If Ahmadinejad was really only developing nuclear power he wouldn't bar the inspectors from coming and checking on things. Clearly he is uncooperative and has something to hide.
If Iran wants to stop the US from claiming falsely that they have nuclear capabilities, they should be honest and upfront about the nuclear development plans and allow international inspectors. This way the US would have no leg to stand on by attacking Iran. arniegang you have a fair and reasonable point there K Liban Iran has never invaded a single country not started a war with anyone. The US has invaded countless countries, meddled in many internal affaires, and overthrown leaders. Why can the US, a nuclear powered tyrant, do as it pleases, and Iran, a small player in the nuclear arena, much bend over to George Bush... Screw Bush. kanelli So because the US has been a world military power and has acted in a hypocritical way, it is okay for Iran to develop nuclear weapons? :roll: arniegang Liban Your views on Shafs post would be most interesting. Liban Its a free world.... Western predjudice against Islam is preventing Iran from doing as it pleases... It is in the zionist lobby's interest to prevent Muslim countries involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict from having the bomb... kanelli I've been doing more reading... This is a very interesting paper from - #Closecalls Here is one short excerpt, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Self-fulfilling Prophecy? The Pentagon can make an understandable point about other nations possibly developing weapons of mass destruction. However, there is an increasing risk that the U.S. rhetoric could also become a self full-filling prophecy. * That is, (using an over-simplified scenario, for sake of explanation), if the U.S. claims the need to create more nuclear weapons or to pursue more nuclear options for attack purposes on the grounds that others might develop and use them, then other countries might become more concerned at the advantage the U.S. military will have, and may feel threatened by such a formidable nuclear superpower. * Hence, it is very possible that these nations might spend more on military to increase their abilities * As a result, we would have a scenario where the U.S. seemed right to pursue such policies, but it was instead a self full-filling prophecy. For a while now, even before September 11 and its aftermath, it has been argued that an arms race and large military build ups by the more powerful nations in general can be detrimental to global security because of the insecurity it may cause to smaller nations who might feel that they need to arm themselves even more so. (See for example, this site’s page on foreign policy.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The US is endangering world security - I won't deny that. However, other countries developing nuclear weapons is only adding fuel to the fire. Liban
Typical moronic western response. Liban
True...
They deserve much worse.
Are you a jew lover? :? kanelli I love all human beings Liban. I'd even protect you if a group of people wanted to slaughter you. Here is another excerpt from the article I posted previously - The Right to Have Nuclear Weapons? Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), every country does have a right to nuclear development for peaceful purposes (i.e. nuclear energy). The fear is that countries may use this as a guise for weapons development. This is what the Bush Administration has been concerned about in the Iran example. More fundamentally, if (as also noted further above) powerful countries, such as the US itself, are pursuing nuclear weapons options (defying various nuclear non proliferation treaties in the process), this raises arguments that many have made in the past, such as: * Surely others have a right to develop nuclear weapons as well? * Why should only a few powerful countries have them? * Won’t they use their position to pressure or bully other countries to their interests? North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel, for example (and possibly Iran, depending on how things progress) would seem to directly or indirectly support these questions for their own interests. The right to nuclear weapons will be an attractive argument for those who feel threatened by the current world powers, or for those with more ambition. Furthermore, the world’s foremost nuclear powers appear unwilling to provide sufficient help. Some, such as the US, appear to reverse and actually develop more weapons, citing reasons such as fear and mistrust of others. In that context, it would be hard to argue against other countries also demanding such terrible weapons. The US may even find it will have to accept that others will want nuclear weapons too, as they will recycle these same concerns, often back towards the US, adding the charge of hypocrisy if the US opposes them. Perhaps in the ideal sense most citizens in the world would like to see all countries give up their nuclear weapons, but in the world of real-politik, that would seem suicidal. The arms race fear seems hard to avoid. Liban
Awwwww :oops: arniegang You may awwwwwww Liban But thats what separates the likes of K , myself and millions of others from the like of you. Its called compassion. MaaaD
Liban you give a horrible impression of Islam. In Islamic literature the Jews of Arabia tried to assasinate the prophet Muhammad multiple times and he never acted but with justice and compassion towards them. Liban what you say on this forum just helps the people who portray islam as a violent religion rather than a religion of peace and compassion. grow up. arniegang Well said Maaad. shafique Sorry Kanelli, I didn't spot your question about whether Iran should be 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons.
Allowed by whom is a question that the world is increasingly asking. A nation or a person is judged by both actions and words. What one does when one is a position of authority or strength shows the rest of the world where your values lie. When you have the power to act with justice when it will go against your national interest, then you will have the moral authority to dictate to others or seek to impose justice on others.
I saw an interview with an Indian minister on British tv around the time that they tested their first nukes - he made an interesting point. Why should an ancient civilisation such as India with people in power who are no intellectual light-weights be viewed as less responsible than the current nuclear powers - China, US, Britain, France, Israel, North Korea etc. ?
Is there not some superiority complex going on that looks down on 'foreigners' and says that they are less civilised than the 'West'?
Who has actually used nuclear weapons? Who used them twice? People have pointed above that the US invades other countries with alacrity - overthrowing democracies when it doesn't suit their needs. It was responsible for the installation of the Ba'ath party in Iraq - sending in the young Sadaam Hussein to assasinate the king - , the invasion of Grenada, the kerfuffle in Nicaragua etc etc.
So now lets turn to Iran and compare them with the other nuclear powers.
Iran is an ancient civilisation and is a democracy. Iran has broken no international laws. Iran does not kow-tow to the US.. So, some ask, is it only the 'friends' of the US that can have nuclear weapons? Or is the experience of N Korea one that says if you have them, you do not need to fear invasion and you have free reign to oppress your people??
I therefore take exception to Kanelli's question about whether Iran should be 'allowed' nuclear weapons. On one level it is a red herring - best estimates are that this is a few years away in any case. There is no threat and no one really believes they will use them against Israel. Assured mutual anhilation is an effective deterrent and the arguments that somehow those in power who have 'brown' skins won't be as 'civilised' as the US and USSR at the height of the cold war is laughable at best and inherently racist and disgusting at worst.
Rhetoric is one thing - French and Italian leaders have spouted offensive and xenophobic utterances in the past few years, but no one characterises the whole of France or Italy as being idiots!
Iran are saying they are not developing nuclear weapons - fact. Iran has not broken any international laws thus far - fact. Iran is allowed to develop nuclear technology for fuel - fact.
Should we get to the stage that Iran will iminently be in a position to develop nuclear weapons, do I think they should be allowed? Why not? I don't see them being a greater threat than say Pakistan - rhetoric about Israel notwithstanding. The president does not have death wish for his country and questioning whether Israel should exist is not a sign of madness or a sign of bloodlust and suicidal tendencies. It is a view that he holds and that many in the region hold - mostly because of the people that have displaced and disadvantaged by the creation of Israel in their eyes.
I think that the leadership of Iran is much more enlightened that that of Pakistan or North Korea (or Zimbabwe, Burma etc etc)
Therefore, I would turn the question back to kanelli and others and ask for detailed reasoning why Iran shouldn't be allowed to pursue it's currently legal nuclear development without the sabre rattling coming from Washington? Do you think Iran is less responsible than the US - why do you think this?
Food for thought, I hope.
Wasalaam,
Shafique kanelli
That is a stereotype, and besides who are the foreigners and who is the West? People from Western countries can be foreigners in other Western countries, and people from non-Western countries are not necessarily treated like foreigners in some Western countries.
I'm looked down on here in the UAE because I'm a white Western female who doesn't wear completely baggy clothes or cover her hair. Many men think that I am a slut and immoral because I am not Muslim and all Western girls are "easy".
So, if there are some foreigners looked down on in a country, shouldn't we say it is a wider phenomenon that only in the West?

Take exception all you like, but there is a nuclear non-proliferation treaty to stop further development of nuclear arms. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the cold war between US and USSR was enough to scare the world into taking measures to stop such a thing from happening again. Are they wrong?
It is my opinion that NO ONE SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I'm aware that the US and other countries are flouting the treaty, but that doesn't let Iran off the hook either.
As far as I know, no one has ever said that the "brown skins" won't be as civilised as the US and USSR when possessing nukes. Sorry, but we've all heard far too many Muslim Arabs talking about killing some Jews. Forgive people for thinking that one day they might actually act on their words. Genocide is not new to the planet, and all threats should be taken seriously. Besides, who said that the US and USSR are necessarily that civilised anyway - at least in some regards, like military and justice.

I agree with your facts. Let's see if Iran truly does stop at nuclear power generation and not push further to nuclear weapons development. There has been intelligence gathering that says they do intend to develop nukes. The intelligence can be wrong, but still the world shouldn't ignore all intelligence just because it MIGHT be wrong.
Again, if Iran are not developing nuclear weapons, they should let the inspectors in.
If Iran wants to give everyone the middle finger, just like the US did when invading Iraq, then they will have to face the consequences, just as the US will. Two wrongs don't make a right. shafique Kanelli, Iran are not signatories to the nuclear non proliferation treaty, as I understand it. They have said they are not developing nuclear weapons. Where's the beef? I mean, where exactly is the concern? I've not seen any 'inteligence gathering' saying they are developing nuclear weapons? I've seen reports that say IF they wanted to, then this is still 2 year s away. So I repeat, what is the fuss? What is it based on? :) Wasalaam, shafique kanelli Shaf, I always enjoy discussing with you :) I know that Iran aren't signatories - but they should be! I'm saying that other countries who are signatories ARE concerned. This was to answer your question about Iran being "allowed" to develop nuclear weapons. Many countries and citizens around the world do not want to allow ANY country to develop nukes. I found a discussion transcript online that helps to answer some questions about Iran and nuclear weapons plans. Well, basically, the conclusion is that it isn't known for sure. This is old too, from 2004. (/me tries to dig up more current info. that is good.) International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei speaks with Margaret Warner about Iran's alleged nuclear proliferation program and the international nuclear threat. So, if the US does too much sabre rattling at this point, yes it does seem suscpicious in light of the fact that no strong evidence has come out that Iran does have set plans and is close to the goal. Some people seem to think that just because other countries have nukes, and the US is hypocritical it helps justify why Iran should have the right to develop nukes. This is what I disagree with. Hey Shaf, no one seems to be touching your earlier post about what the divided Middle East would do if there was a nuclear threat from US and/or Israel. shafique Kanneli, I enjoy discussing with you as well. I too have noted the deafening silence on the other points :) I always try and look beyond rhetoric and see what is happening to people on the ground and see what is actually affecting them. I hate the stereotyping of any people. I also have an inherent distrust of nuclear weapons and think the world would be a better place without them... As to the protestations about Iran, the words from Hamlet "methinks the lady doth protest too much" spring to mind. I had similar reservations before the Iraq invasion (take II, "this time it's personal") - which were proved entirely correct. I haven't been able to dismiss the argument that the US will not allow the petrodollar to be threatened and that the economic forces are driving these moves. It's not the control of oil - the US has massive reserves (depending on what study you read) - but the link of oil prices to the dollar and therefore artificially propping up the US economy. Just my 2 cents worth - in full knowledge that I haven't the power to do anything but watch events unfold.. Wasalaam (Peace), Shafique kanelli In the article I posted earlier it mentions the fact that the US seems keen on the idea of pre-emptive strikes since the events of 9/11, and there isn't any international law regarding a country using pre-emptive strikes. It is very scary to think that the US could make false accusations against yet another country as justification to make a pre-emptive attack, meanwhile there are other hidden motives behind the actions. I can't handle it if it happens again. I wouldn't want to sit back and watch events unfold, but it is true - the US really holds the economic and military power. The US could be using their power and influence to do good things, but sadly this hasn't been the case in recent years. arniegang Interesting point K, in particular your reference to "hidden motives". The film "13 Days" about the Cuban missile crisis was indicative of the hidden agenda motive. There is one point in the film where it portrayed Kennedy, his advisors and all the heads of the various military forces. It showed the arguements put forward by "the military" for a pre-emtive strike basically down to the fact that they really only wanted to "play with their toys" as a justification for attack. As we all know Kennedy stood his ground and the rest is history. But it makes you wonder "what if", had Kennedy been a weaker and more easily led type leader. shafique Interesting point - I'm not a lawyer so don't know about pre-emptive strikes not being against international law. However, I would have thought that bombing a foreign territory is something that is covered under international law and that just calling it a 'pre-emptive strike' doesn't make it into a legal action? Who gets to say what is pre-emptive or not? I guess you've also uncovered another advantage of being religious - we get to pray to God and that does remove that 'helpless' frustration from these types of situation. Wasalaam, Shafique kanelli
You'd think there would be a law already since it has been some time since the whole Iraq fiasco. (The Taleban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan I have no problem with because they had terrorist training camps that had to go, and the 9/11 attacks happened first.)
Well, the US already defined pre-emptive as meaning "hit them first so they don't hit you". The problem with this is any country can use such a loose definition to attack another country for whatever reason (especially with cooked intelligence) Talk about chaos!
Faith is definitely a positive and comforting thing for many people. :D kanelli Sorry I missed your post arniegang. I haven't seen the movie, but yes - I'm certainly glad that Kennedy was not a weaker man.



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy