US War Against Iran Has Started

by redjade Fri Jan 28, 2005 14:53

The Israeli defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, warned yesterday that Iran will reach "the point of no return" within the next 12 months in its covert attempt to secure a nuclear weapons capability.

Tehran denies pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.

[....]

In an interview with the Financial Times yesterday, Mr Blair refused to rule out the option of using military force.

With the US bogged down in the Iraq conflict, opening another front in Iran would be risky. Iran's Shebab-3 rockets are theoretically capable of hitting Israel.

The Israeli and US rhetoric has grown more strident in the last week and could be aimed at pushing Britain, France and Germany into taking a tougher diplomatic approach towards Iran.

The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, said last week that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did against Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

Gen Mofaz indicated yesterday that he thought the US rather than Israel should do it: "It is the strongest power that can stop any nuclear power, especially in the hands of an extreme regime."

by Terry Fri Jan 28, 2005 23:50

With the mess in Iraq, Iran has de facto become the stronger regional power, therefore from the American point of view they need to be weakened and so all this talk of another war and the real threats.

From recent history, in fact since the first Gulf War, the USA deliberately set about weakening Iraq. One of the main strategies in doing this was the systematic destruction of their infrastructure, namely the water and sewage and the electric grid. The destruction of the water system was probably one of the single greatest contributors to the many hundreds of thousands who died during the 10+ years of sanctions, when Iraq found it impossible the get the needed quantities of spare parts to fix the system.

So in the case of Iran, I doubt they will launch a full invasion, but you can be sure they are mapping all the water pumping stations and sewage treatment works as we speak, if not already done so and all the major power plants. These will very likely, be destroyed and will cause severe crisis in Iran. From the cabal in the White House point of view and their supporters behind them, the way to secure their power in that region or rather to deny it from anyone else, is the continually harass and bomb Iran into the future, but never so much that the Iranians are likely to attack the US forces in the region in any major way, since that would 'justify' overwhelming bombing by the USA and the Iranians may not want to risk the country being reduced to total ruins like Iraq.

Since oil is such a big factor, we must consider this. Therefore it is worth noting that the USA gets much of it's oil from it's near neighbours, such as Canada and Mexico and a bit further a field in South America. They also get oil from a number of West African countries too, with not much actually going from the Gulf to the USA.

On the other hand both Europe and Asia (think the 2 big powers China and Japan) get quite a lot of oil from the Middle East. Any trade between them is beneficial to Europe and Asia and of course to the Middle East. In the case of Iran, all that cash allows them to buy lots of stuff and is a very big boost to their economy and by default the regional power status. By sabotaging and laying waste to the Middle East, (first Iraq, now Iran ?), they are able to deny the lifeblood of the economies of both Europe and Asia and thus hopefully from their point of view keep both of those economic giants in check. The logic is that if you weaken others, you strengthen yourself because of relativities.

Many have pondered why the USA have laid total waste to Iraq, as if it was kind of some mistake on their behalf. I would think the opposite. That is the plan, to lay waste to the place. Indeed the use of depleted Uranium weapons, of which 4,000 tonnes of Uranium have already been used and converted into fine dust, very likely insures that there will be nobody in that part of the world who will not be contaminated and the genomes of these people is perhaps permanently damaged -and just as the people in power -the cabal, capitalists whatever you want to call them, intended all along.

So to the cabal in power, the fact that 1300 troops have died or any other number is largely irrelevant. And since DU has already been mentioned, all those troops there will be badly affected by it too. But again for the elite, this is totally irrelevant. From their point of view, it's better off that they die quitely at home, because they are less likely to be bothering other people about the evils of war and even less likely to be able to go out protesting on the streets.

The only problem is that the operation is probably costing them a bit more than they planned for. But that is not even too much of a worry, because at least the tax payer is footing the bill and the large so-called 'defense' industry is doing well.

by Dr. Ebi Abtin Sun Jan 30, 2005 02:17 ebiabtin at yahoo dot com

when the enemy is usa, let id that part of the world iran, the land of persian, the first empire of the world.
usa politician know that iran is not afganisatn or irak, they have no courage to attack this superpower of the region, they have already tried to do so by backing iraq 1980-88....
iranian dislake usa since 1953-mosadegh.

by reza Sun Jan 30, 2005 11:06

US can do nothing about Iran.we Iranian however have comments regarding our government but resist against any foreign attack.
US with its records in Iraq,Abugharib ,Guantanamo and many other parts of the world must not say about human rights.they killed thousends of Iraqys wishout any exuquse.unfortunately The World espicially Europeans are silent.

by eeekkkk Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:44

Please keep us informed of developments in your country. We speak english in ireland but not the same english as the UK or US. We like Iranian Bloggers too.

by redjade Mon Jan 31, 2005 16:20

Houston's Halliburton Co. has decided to pull the plug on Iran.

After facing inquiries from a Houston grand jury, a Senate panel and the nation's media into its business dealings in the rogue state, Halliburton has decided the $30 million to $40 million worth of business it was doing annually in Iran wasn't worth all the trouble.

"The business environment currently in Iran is not conducive to our overall strategies and objectives," Halliburton Chief Executive Officer Dave Lesar said Friday.

But Lesar noted: "If the U.S. sanctions are lifted in the future or more of our major customers go there, we will return to this market."

by redjade Mon Jan 31, 2005 18:38

It has become fashionable every few months to rely on small signs in Washington and proclaim that the rule of the neocons is over, but nothing could be further from the truth. Their essential plan continues completely unopposed, and there is no prospect that Bush will even attempt to rein them in. The sole impediments to what amounts to a World War against Islam and much of the rest of the world are logistical, not political.

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/01/disasters-military-and-economic.html

-- -- --

Also:
PNAC NeoCons are asking for a Draft (altho they didn't use that word)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

by South African Friend of Ireland Mon Jan 31, 2005 19:42

Who said The Crusades ended in The Middle Ages?

by mise Mon Jan 31, 2005 19:59

I'd keep me eye on the ball too if I was a Syrian, all this hot air aimed at Iran could be just to deflect from their real intentions. After all - thats where the rest of the Sunnis and Ba'athists are.

by redjade Fri Feb 04, 2005 16:34

General Electric Co., which has been accused of collecting "blood money" by doing business in Iran, will stop accepting any new orders for business in the country, company officials said Wednesday.

The move by the world's largest company by market value comes just days after another conglomerate, Halliburton Co., announced the company will wind down its operations in Iran.

[....]

Under current law, U.S. firms are not allowed to do business with nations deemed by the United States to sponsor terrorism. But the law does not specifically bar foreign subsidiaries from such business.

"Our business activities in Iran are fully compliant with U.S. law," said Gary Sheffer, a GE spokesman.

by redjade Fri Feb 04, 2005 16:38

Halliburton Doing Business With the 'Axis of Evil'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58298-2005Feb2?language=printer

The deal to develop two sections of Iran's South Pars gas field promises significant economic benefits.

"The project includes onshore and offshore sections and its initial phase is to become operational by the first quarter of 2007," said the Tehran-based news site. The total output of the phases will reportedly produce 50 million cubic meters per day of treated natural gas for domestic use and 80,000 barrels of gas liquids per day for export.

[....]

"We are in the service business, not the foreign-policy business," she said. "We have followed and will continue to follow applicable laws."

[....]

But don't expect Halliburton to leave Iran any time soon. The company has opened an unmarked office on the 10th floor of a Tehran office building, according to Vivian Walt of Fortune Magazine. Since the South Pars project is expected to take 52 months to complete, according to the Tehran-based Mehr news agency, Halliburton seems likely to remain in Iran through 2009.

So while President Bush attempts to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, the Tehran government reaps the benefits by doing business with Vice President Cheney's former employer.

by redjade Fri Feb 04, 2005 17:04

Venezuela has enrolled Iran to help it accelerate a strategy to steer its oil exports to China and away from its traditional market of the US.

[....]

The action is part of efforts by Venezuela, the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter, to strengthen ties with China at the expense of the US, with whom relations are strained again after two-years of calm.

Iran is Venezuela’s closest ally in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which at the weekend agreed to keep output quotas unchanged in the short term to support oil prices.

Financial Times
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5227

by redjade Sat Feb 05, 2005 13:16

Partial results from Sunday's election suggest that U.S.-backed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's coalition is being roundly defeated by a list with the backing of Iraq's senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, diminishing Allawi's chances of retaining his post in the next government.

Sharif Ali bin Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Party, likened the vote outcome to a "Sistani tsunami" that would shake the nation.

"Americans are in for a shock," he said, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops."

[....]

Already, Western officials in Baghdad appeared to be downplaying worries about the possible victory by the alliance, topped by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, a cleric who spent years exiled in Iran.

The alliance "is a very diverse group of people, from Westernized independents to Sunni sheikhs to people who really believe in an Islamic state, " one Western diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity said of the alliance on Wednesday. "It will be hard to maintain unity."

The election commission also released final vote tallies from overseas voters in eight countries, the United States, Britain, France, Iran, Syria, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Australia. The alliance won of 44 percent of the 170,000 votes cast in those countries, the Kurds 18 percent and Allawi's list 12 percent. In U.S. voting, Allawi garnered just 5 percent of the vote, less than the Communist Party total.

by redjade Sat Feb 05, 2005 13:20

Less than a day after President Bush declared he was "working with European allies" to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States would continue to rebuff European requests to participate directly in offering incentives for Iran to drop what is suspected of being a nuclear arms program.

[....]

In Iran on Thursday, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, predicted that Mr. Bush, like every other American president since Iran's 1979 revolution, would fail to overthrow the Islamic republic.

"Bush is the fifth U.S. president who wants to destroy the Islamic republic," the ayatollah told university students. "But he will fail as did Jimmy Carter, Reagan, Bush senior and Clinton." Branding the United States "one of the heads of the dragon of world oppression," he charged that Mr. Bush had been installed in the White House by "Zionist and non-Zionist companies and capitalists to serve their interests."

Mohammad Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's ambassador to Paris, said in an interview on Thursday that Iran should be rewarded, not punished, by the United States for supporting the democratic electoral process in Iraq. "We were the only country in the region to fully support elections in Iraq," Mr. Kharazi said. "And in return we get President Bush's negative body language. America just doesn't want to understand our reality. Is it fair? No."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/international/middleeast/04diplo.html?ex=1265173200&en=3647df21c37e7701&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

by redjade Sat Feb 05, 2005 16:02

.

by redjade Sat Feb 05, 2005 16:18

US bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html
September 30, 2004

....a dozen is the number of so-called "enduring bases" located by John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org. His military affairs website gives their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune last March said US engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn't located two of them.

Note the terminology "enduring" bases. That's Pentagon-speak for long-term encampments - not necessarily permanent, but not just a tent on a wood platform either. It all suggests a planned indefinite stay on Iraqi soil that will cost US taxpayers for years to come.

[....]

The US already has 890 military installations in foreign countries, ranging from major Air Force bases to smaller installations, say a radar facility. Perhaps bases in Iraq would enable the Pentagon to close a few of those facilities. As part of a post-cold-war shift in its global posture, the Defense Department has been cutting the number of its installations in Germany, which total more than 100.

--- --- --- --- ---

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Chicago Tribune March 23, 2004
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.

As the U.S. scales back its military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq provides an option for an administration eager to maintain a robust military presence in the Middle East and intent on a muscular approach to seeding democracy in the region. The number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006, according to military planners.

"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."

by redjade Sat Feb 05, 2005 16:39

Key Quote: ''American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.''

-- -- --

Project for the New American Century
REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century

Written
September 2000
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance.

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial

American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Google Cache of PDF Format File:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:ruMnHnl98cAJ:www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf+&hl=en

PDF Format File
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

by redjade Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:45

The One-Sentence Iran Policy
By Jim Hoagland
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64964-2005Feb4.html

The Bush administration is conducting a "policy review" toward Iran that is provoking a swirl of questions in the capital's national security wonkdom. Here's mine: How do you review something that does not exist?

The task of managing this reexamination of a policy unicorn (or is it a dragon?) falls to Elliott Abrams, a senior staffer for President Bush's National Security Council.

-- -- --

Who is Elliott Abrams?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams

''Abrams was indicted by the Iran-Contra special prosecutor for giving false testimony about his role in the illicit money-raising schemes, but he pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information to Congress in order to avoid a trial and a possible jail term. President George H. W. Bush pardoned Abrams along with a number of other Iran-Contra defendants shortly before leaving office in 1992.''

by redjade Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:52

http://peaceiran.blogspot.com/
'This weblog is dedicated to the Iranian people who are against a military attack on Iran. We believe that no war can contribute to the establishment of liberty and democracy in our country.'

-- -- --

http://www.nowaroniran.com/

''I would rather err on the side of caution and take the dangerous signals being sent out by Neoconservatives and Likudniks in the U.S. and Israel during recent months very seriously. If any of us has the power to do anything to prevent disaster, we will have to do it now. One dimension of any effort at such prevention will have to be in the realm of information, or more precisely, in fighting the dis-information campaign that is being waged at an ever-more alarming rate, some say to test the waters, others say to lay the grounds, for a coming war.

This group blog is one small step in that direction.''

Iranian Bloggers say No to War

by redjade Tue Feb 08, 2005 15:12

Iraq Shiite leaders demand Islam be the source of law
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&u=/afp/20050206/wl_afp/iraqvotereligion&printer=1

Iraq Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and another top cleric staked out a radical demand that Islam be the sole source of legislation in the country's new constitution.

One cleric issued a statement setting out the position and the spiritual leader of Iraqi Shiites made it known straight away that he backed demands for the Koran to be the reference point for legislation.

The national assembly formed after last month's historic elections is to oversee the drawing up of the new constitution and Sistani is the figurehead of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance expected to become the largest single bloc.

--- --- ---

Cheney doesn't expect a theocracy
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/037/wash/Cheney_says_Iraqis_will_determP.shtml

Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday brushed off concern that Islam will be the guiding principle of Iraq's new government, saying the country has the right to shape its own democracy without becoming ''an Iraqi version of America.''

[....]

Rumsfeld said other countries with predominantly Muslim populations include their faith without having it dominate. He said it is unlikely that Iraq will end up with a government like Iran's, ''a handful of mullahs controlling much of the country.''

by redjade Tue Feb 08, 2005 15:17

The Republicans' Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iraq
http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/republicans-iraq-and-islamic-republic.html

If it means a clerically-ruled state, then I agree with Vice President Dick Cheney that a) you have to look at what Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani wants, and b) that Sistani does not want clerics to rule the country as in Iran. But the main goal of political Islam in the past few decades hasn't been clerical rule. It has been the replacement of civil law with shariah or Islamic canon law. This was done by the non-clerical government of Sudan, e.g. And that is where Iraq is headed. The only question is how wideranging the substitution will be. Will it just be personal status law (marriage, divorce, inheritance, alimony, etc.), or will it be in commercial law and other spheres of society?

Even as Cheney was pooh-poohing the notion of Iraqi theocracy, Sistani's close colleague Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Ishaq al-Fayyad said, "We warn officials against a separation of the state and religion." Then Sistani's spokesman came out and said that the Grand Ayatollah Sistani "wants the source of legislation to be Islam."

by The Devil and George Warmonger Bush - Black House Bullies For War In Iran Wed Feb 09, 2005 05:15 666 Big Oil Dr, Bush TX Skeeza 666-Rot-Rice Ext. Hell

The Shadowy Iran-Contra Figure John Negroponte is not in Iraq For a Knitting Seminar. He is there for Covert Operations. In Iraq, In Syria, and In Iran. These are NOT just Psyops but also Air Recon Missions. As for the Shiite Election Victories, He who controls the Military Controls the Oil. The Shiites don't yet have that Control. Bush does for now.

by redjade Thu Feb 10, 2005 19:02

→ Bush Talking Points.... fear fear fear....
--
Bush: World Must Speak with One Voice on Iran Nukes

President Bush (news - web sites) said on Wednesday Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a "very destabilizing" force and that it was important for the world to speak with one voice against Tehran's program.

"The Iranians just need to know that the free world is working together to send a very clear message: Don't develop a nuclear weapon," Bush said.

"And the reason we're sending that message is because Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a very destabilizing force in the world," he said during a meeting with Poland's president.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050209/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_bush_dc_1

--- --- --- --- ---

→ Pentagon Talking Points, we're thinking about it but no big rush (for now)....
--

Pentagon regularly reviews war plans: Centcom

The Pentagon's regularly reviewing its war plans against Iran, but it is not in an active phase of preparing a military campaign against the country, the deputy head of the US Central Command, General Lance Smith, said.

"I'm not spending any of my time worrying about the nuclear proliferation in Iran," the general told a Pentagon news conference. "I haven't been called into any late-night meetings ... to sit down and go plan for Iran."

At the same time, he said, the Defense Department was regularly updating its war plans for various regions, and that process included Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050209/pl_afp/usirandefense_050209223046

--- --- --- --- ---

→ Meanwhile.... the Bushies are working to make sure the UN gives the right answer for the next war....

--
U.S. Aims to Oust U.N. Nuke Official

The United States is lobbying allies in a bid to oust the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, perhaps as early as the end of the month, diplomats and officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Anticipating that present European diplomatic efforts on Iran will fail, the diplomats and officials also told AP that Washington plans to increase pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program when the International Atomic Energy Agency meets Feb. 28.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=6&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran

by redjade Thu Feb 10, 2005 19:09

Blogger's 'Crime' Against the Islamic State

By Farouz Farzami
(Farouz Farzami is the pseudonym of an Iranian journalist.)

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-oe-farzami9feb09.story

[....]

On my second day in confinement, I asked a guard, "Do you know why I am here?"

"I don't know," she replied. "Your interrogator will tell you."

The next day, I was taken to a room down a long corridor and told to sit down. A fat hand with an agate stone ring set an interrogation form in front of me. Then he began asking about my Web log, which has hyperlinks on it to Western feminist groups.

"Do you accept the charges?" the interrogator asked.

"What charges?"

"That you have written things in your Web log that go against the Islamic system and that encourage people to topple the system," he said. "You are inviting corrupt American liberalism to rule Iran."

"I've tried to write my ideas and opinions in my Web log and to communicate with others in Farsi all over the world," I said.

He was displeased.

"These answers will lead us nowhere, and you will stay here for years. Tell us the truth. How much have you received to write these offenses against the Islamic state? How are you and your fellow Web loggers organized?"

How should I respond? I knew my mother must be terribly worried about me. What could I say to make sure I got out?

"We are not organized against the state," I said. "I write because I want to criticize the system. There are some things in our state that should be corrected." "Why don't you write an e-mail directly to the supreme leader's office?" he asked. "The supreme leader considers all criticisms and takes corrective actions."

"I hadn't thought about that," I said. This was nonsense, of course, but I saw an opening. "From now on, I will write directly to the supreme leader and stop writing in my Web log."

"It is too late for that," he said.

by redjade Thu Feb 10, 2005 19:17

Iran has contracted to buy hundreds of high-powered rifles from an Austrian firm, the company's owner said Wednesday. The sale drew an indirect rebuke from the United States, but Austrian government ministries said no laws were broken.

Wolfgang Fuerlinger, head of Steyr Mannlicher GmbH, confirmed the deal between his company and Iranian authorities and said U.S. Embassy officials had expressed concerns the arms could make their way to Iraq for use against American troops.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/02/09/austria/index_np.html

--- --- ---

A reader of 'War and Piece' Blog writes:
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001681.html

''These are 12.7mm x 99mm, which makes them the functional equivalent of the US military .50cal sniper rifles. They will be capable of penetrating light armor, such as in armored personnel carriers - though not tanks. Steyr makes excellent weapons, and rifles of this type are capable of accurate fire at more than 2km in the hands of a skilled operator.....''

by righteous pragmatist Thu Feb 10, 2005 20:28

To be able to fire the rifle you have to be trained. The U.S. Army, U.S. Marines, Rangers, Delta Force and Navy Seals have the best weapons traing programs in the world.
It doesn't matter if you have the technological edge - you have to have the expertise to use it.
Another more important factor is whether you come from a society which is free.
A U.S. soldier is a volunteer. He votes for his leaders, he participates as a freeman in an open society. He has a personal stake in whether his nations wins or loses.
Not so for an Iranian. He is a drafee. He does not vote for the leaders he wants but for those selected by the religious authorities, he does not participate as a freeman but must obey the dictates of the ayatollahs. He has no personal stake in whether his nation wins or loses.
That's all the edge that is needed to win.
America can only lose if there is a lack of their own political will.
Iran is a rotten door only waiting to be kicked in.

by redjade Thu Feb 10, 2005 20:33

'Iran is a rotten door only waiting to be kicked in.'

yeah, that's right RP - thinngs worked so well in Iraq that the sequel can only be better, eh?

by righteous pragmatist Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:39

On January 30th 72% of Iraqis went to the polls and voted for a democratic future.
A success.
What are you so upset about military action against Iran anyway?
Do you want millions of Iranians to remain under an Islamic dictatorship?
Do you want the same dictatorship to arm themselves with nukes with which they can threaten non Islamic countries and continued to fund terrorists such as Hezbollah?
Are you nuts or something?

by The Devil and George Warmonger Bush - The Black House Choir Boys Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:37 666 War Criminal Dr, Big Oil TX Satan 666-Ass-Holy Ext. Bush

Now Showing at Langley Theaters Everywhere: "Dancing with The Devil". Music Played by The Iranian Celestial Nuke Orchestra. Sung by The Black House WMD Choir (remember Iraq anyone???). Playing nonstop until His Assholiness George Warmonger Bush gets his War.

by redjade Fri Feb 11, 2005 17:09

American officers say only about a tenth of the 250,000 residents have returned since fleeing the weeklong battle in November that drove out insurgents who had controlled the predominantly Sunni Muslim city.

[....]

[1st Lt. Sven] Jensen said the U.S. presence is paying off. After the battle, patrols often discovered big caches of weapons, he said. The haul last week: one automatic weapon found in the trunk of a vehicle. ‘’Safest city in Iraq,'’ said one of his Marines, Cpl. Daniel Ferrari.

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2559510

link found at
http://multigraphic.dk/lounge/wordpress/index.php?p=1314

by redjade Sat Feb 12, 2005 14:36

→ On January 30th 72% of Iraqis went to the polls and voted for a democratic future. A success.

Hey RP, care to back that up with some link and facts? I'd like to see them. (see link below)

→ What are you so upset about military action against Iran anyway?

Hmmm... Another 100,000 civilians dead? Sorry, I have a conscience.

→ Do you want millions of Iranians to remain under an Islamic dictatorship?

Considering the results of the Iraqi 'elections' what makes you think Iran will not continue to have an 'Islamic dictatorship' after a US invasion? Sistani seems to be set to get his way - and soon, no one will be allowed to play chess, for example. ( http://tinyurl.com/6mcx5 )

→ Do you want the same dictatorship to arm themselves with nukes with which they can threaten non Islamic countries and continued to fund terrorists such as Hezbollah?

ah, this is the funny one coming from the like of ya. there never seems to be too much concern from the armchair NeoCon wannabes about the military dictatorship of Pakistan having nukes, nor the Indian Hindu Fundamentalists having nukes, nor the Israelis having nukes, nor much concern that a majority of the 9/11 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia and Egypt (US allies, supposedly) - not to mention that the Bushies have been trying to break various Nuke related treaties over the years which is setting off a new world's arms race... i could go on.

→ Are you nuts or something?

Yep, probably.

Read on....

For a good breakdown of how many voted and the gullibility of the media in reporting the distorted numbers of voters, please read:

PR, Lies and the Iraqi election.
http://amsam.org/2005/02/pr-lies-and-iraqi-election.html

by redjade Sat Feb 12, 2005 15:29

Unintended consequences: A new Iraq in Iran's image
- We've just cleared the way for a Muslim theocracy
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3034324

In his State of the Union address, Bush denounced Iran as "the world's primary state sponsor of terrorism." At the same time, he celebrated an Iraqi election that handed power to Shiite ayatollahs who were sponsored for decades by their co-religionists in Iran and who share much of Tehran's vision of religion and politics. Does this make sense to anybody outside of the White House?

The final returns from the Iraqi election are not in, but it seems clear that the slate headed by the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution is going to have a clear majority in the new constitutional assembly.

This is a classic example of how, in the real world, there is a lot more gray than an administration that sees everything in black and white wants to admit.

by redjade Sat Feb 12, 2005 15:33

The Shi'ites' Faustian pact
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB11Ak02.html

In Najaf, the holy Shi'ite city, the grand ayatollahs are busy advancing a religious agenda: Ali al-Sistani, Mohammad Ishaq al-Fayad, Bashir al-Najafi and Mohammad Said Hakim compose the al-marja' iyyah (source of infallible authority on all religious matters). They are unanimous: the Shi'ite religious parties, the big winners in the elections, must implement Sharia (Islamic) law - and in fact this is one of the parties' top priorities. This does not mean that Sistani wants - or needs - to control an Iraqi theocracy: it means that the Shi'ite religious parties themselves - led by secular people - will give birth to an Iraqi Islamic republic.

[....]

For the majority of Sunnis and even for some secular Shi'ites, they [the Sistani backed political parties] are Iranian agents: during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the SCIRI was on Iran's side, ie against Saddam. Without Sistani's "blessing", these parties would never have been voted for en masse on January 30.

by redjade Sat Feb 12, 2005 15:36

For the first time in years, Iran has reported defense and military relations with Russia.

Iran's ambassador to Russia reported defense and military cooperation between the two countries. It was the first time a senior Iranian official asserted that the two countries were engaged in defense and military projects.

"Russian-Iranian cooperation is also developing in the military and technical sphere," Iranian ambassador to Moscow Gholamreza Shafei said.

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2005/february/02_03_1.html

by redjade Sun Feb 13, 2005 17:22

The last drone sightings were in mid-January, about the same time that Iran's National Security Council met in Tehran to discuss them, according to an Iranian official.

"It was clear to our air force that the entire intention here was to get us to turn on our radar," the official said.

That tactic, designed to contribute information to what the military calls an "enemy order of battle," was used by the U.S. military in the Korean and Vietnam wars, against the Soviets and the Chinese and in both Iraq wars.

"By coaxing the Iranians to turn on their radar, we can learn all about their defense systems, including the frequencies they are operating on, the range of their radar and, of course, where their weaknesses lie," said Thomas Keaney, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and executive director of the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

'Our decision was: Don't engage'
But it did not work. "The United States must have forgotten that they trained half our guys," the Iranian official said. After a briefing by their air force three weeks ago, Iran's national security officials ordered their forces not to turn on the radar or come into contact with the drones in any way.

"Our decision was: Don't engage," the Iranian official said. Leaving the radar off deprives U.S. forces of vital information about the country's air defense system, but it also makes it harder for Iran to tell if an attack is underway.

by redjade Tue Feb 15, 2005 13:37

Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21679-2005Feb13.html

When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy -- potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions.

But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.

[....]

Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17

If they can't stop the drones they can't stop US jets. You've been warned!
The United States has been flying spy drones over Iran's nuclear sites, Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi said Wednesday, commenting for the first time on media reports of U.S. unmanned surveillance craft over Iran.
"Most of the shining objects that our people see over Iran's airspace are American spying equipment used to spy on Iran's nuclear and military facilities," the minister said.

His remarks to reporters backed up a report in Sunday's Washington Post that quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying the drones have been flying over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs.

"U.S. spying activities over Iranian airspace have been going since a long time ago," Yunesi said.

The Iranian air force was ordered in December to shoot down any unknown or suspicious flying objects in Iran's airspace. At the time, there were reports in Iranian newspapers that spying devices had been found in a pilotless planes that had been shot down.

"If any of the bright objects come close, they will definitely meet our fire. We possess the necessary equipment to confront them," Yunesi said.

Last month, Yunesi said that the United States had been conducting aerial surveillance, but he neither mentioned drones nor nuclear and military sites.

Iranian media has been gripped by a kind of "flying object" fever with dozens of reported sightings in recent weeks. State-run media has reported numerous sightings of unknown objects flying over parts of Iran where nuclear facilities are located.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:17

If they can't stop the drones they can't stop US jets. You've been warned!
The United States has been flying spy drones over Iran's nuclear sites, Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi said Wednesday, commenting for the first time on media reports of U.S. unmanned surveillance craft over Iran.
"Most of the shining objects that our people see over Iran's airspace are American spying equipment used to spy on Iran's nuclear and military facilities," the minister said.

His remarks to reporters backed up a report in Sunday's Washington Post that quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying the drones have been flying over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs.

"U.S. spying activities over Iranian airspace have been going since a long time ago," Yunesi said.

The Iranian air force was ordered in December to shoot down any unknown or suspicious flying objects in Iran's airspace. At the time, there were reports in Iranian newspapers that spying devices had been found in a pilotless planes that had been shot down.

"If any of the bright objects come close, they will definitely meet our fire. We possess the necessary equipment to confront them," Yunesi said.

Last month, Yunesi said that the United States had been conducting aerial surveillance, but he neither mentioned drones nor nuclear and military sites.

Iranian media has been gripped by a kind of "flying object" fever with dozens of reported sightings in recent weeks. State-run media has reported numerous sightings of unknown objects flying over parts of Iran where nuclear facilities are located.

by redjade Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:18

This is actually old news that has been recently amplified by the mainstream media. Below is the story as I started blogging it back in Jan 28.

Why the story made the headlines 20 days later is an interesting question...

→ US War Against Iran Has Started
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68402

As it is a violation of the air space of a sovereign country, it is therefore the US has started a war with Iran.

→ Unfortunately RP seems unconcerned about Pakistan's national hero AQ Khan - he built nuclear weapons for the Pakistani military regime (US allies, of course) and then sold the technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

.... .... ....

Pakistan's nuclear hero, world's No. 1 nuclear suspect
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0202/p25s01-wosc.html

''Streets, schools, even cricket teams carry his name. He paid for a community center near his home in Islamabad, so elderly neighbors would have a place to watch TV. And it's widely noted in the local media that feeding monkeys is his favorite pastime. But Dr. A.Q. Khan didn't become famous for his quirks or charitable impulse.

In the West, his image is darker. For years US intelligence has considered the tall, gray-haired man as a dangerous kind of A-bomb Johnny Appleseed - a man willing to share weapons secrets with anyone, for a price.''

.... .... ....

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says....
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj04weiss

''...there needs to be an effective contingency plan for preventing Pakistan's weapons from falling into the hands of radical undemocratic elements in the country, something that could happen regardless of U.S. policy.

Pakistan presents a real and ongoing test of the seriousness of the Bush administration on the issue of nonproliferation. The choice between fighting proliferation or fighting terrorism is ultimately a false one. Sacrificing one for the other would have disastrous consequences for national security.''

.... .... ....

A.Q. Khan
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm

.... .... ....

By the way,
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists say it's Seven minutes to midnight....
http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock

by pc Wed Feb 16, 2005 15:54

with all the talk of newclear veapons and ithe clocked hasn't moved since 2002???

by redjade Wed Feb 16, 2005 16:13

1988 | Six minutes to midnight
1990 | Ten minutes to midnight
1991 | Seventeen minutes to midnight
1995 | Fourteen minutes to midnight
1998 | Nine minutes to midnight
2002 | Seven minutes to midnight

http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/timeline.htm

by redjade Wed Feb 16, 2005 16:23

Blast Report Raises Tensions in Iran
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147764,00.html

A large explosion rocked the southern Iranian city of Dailam on Wednesday as both Iran and Syria said they will unite against any challenges or threats to their nations' livelihoods.

Iranian state television initially reported that an unknown aircraft fired a missile in a desert area near the southern city of Dailam in the Bushehr province, the location of a nuclear power plant. The network later said, however, that the explosion may have been caused by a fuel tank dropping from an Iranian plane. Iranian revolutionary guards said there was no attack in Iran but they also denied reports of a falling fuel tank.

by redjade Wed Feb 16, 2005 16:41

Regarding Hariri Assasination (no actual evidence needed):

"We're going to turn up the heat on Syria, that's for sure," said a senior State Department official. "It's been a pretty steady progression of pressure up to now, but I think it's going to spike in the wake of this event. Even though there's no evidence to link it to Syria, Syria has, by negligence or design, allowed Lebanon to become destabilized."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/international/middleeast/15syria.html?ex=1266123600&en=07929bcb4b718ae0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

-- -- -- -- --

If Bush is now gunning for anyone, it’s Syria not Iran
by Andrew Sullivan
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-1501-1471884-1501,00.html

If I had to pick one flash-point that could prompt limited military action, it would be Syria. That country received the toughest words in Bush’s speech: “To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbour terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region.

“You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act — and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom.”

Syria matters because it has become a base for the jihadists and Ba’athists trying to destroy Iraq’s fledgling and fragile democratic experiment. Its human rights record is appalling and its de facto occupation of Lebanon, strangely ignored by European elites, remains a sore point. Assad has been put on notice.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:01

Remember when Ted Kennedy made the ludicrous claim that Abu Graib was "under new management"? He compared Americans forcing naked Iraqis into buttock mountains, to wear panties on their faces or to masturbate while a girl laughed at their genitals (incidentally standard fare in Amsterdam brothels) to Baathist Iraq's sadistic mass murderering jailers who raped infants in front of their parents or dissolved prisoners limbs in sulfuric acid to extract confessions of disloyalty to Saddam
Sullivan got the sweats.
Then Bush said he didn't approve of gay marriage because the majority of Americans didn't either, Sullivan lost the plot (being gay himself) and believed Iraq was going down the drain and Kerry was going to win last November.

How things change?

At least Sullivan learnt the errors of his ways.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:22

You are a very angry man Jeff ( you probably spit while you talk too).
The freedom that you have to express your views depends on the existence of the U.S. Army and politicians like George W. Bush who have for decades protected the little utopian bubble that is European democracy.
If Germany had won the Second World War you would probably be breaking rocks in a concentration camp.
If Russia had won the Cold War you would be working in a salt mine in Siberia.
But your not?
Why?
Because the Americans step in everytime for no personal gain other than the satisfaction that you are free to hate them.
If Iran are allowed to terrorise Europe into submission with the threat of nukes which can vaporise our Berlin within ten minutes of launching or Al-Qeada flattens the centre of Paris with a hijacked airliner you and others like would be screaming at the Americans for not protecting you.
But George W. Bush is protecting you right NOW and that is why those nightmares haven't happened.

by jeff Wed Feb 16, 2005 20:08

So angry I actually spit blood when I talk. Too angry for some people.

Anyway, your point ie; America protects us. I'd like to remind you that it was not a sleazy businessman from Texas that helped Europe in WW11, it was FD Roosevelt, Democrat and architect of the now derided 'New Deal' (Derided by the neo Cons, of course, for being too left wing.) The New Deal was everything the conservatives were against, it was a massive welfare programme, designed to both alleviate the suffering of America's poor, and act as a bulwark against the enmcroaching forces of both Communism and Fascism.

Todays administration are on to a different tack, mainly oil and the free market. I don't believe conservatives have ordinary peoples interests at heart, just their own. Iraq was attacked precisly because it had no weapons, this WMD argument was obviously a convenient smokescreen.

I don't believe for one second that Iran would nuke Berlin. For every nuke Iran has, European countries will have ten of them. The result would be all out carnage.

Pre-emptive strikes are another smokescreen designed to help advance the neo con agenda. Neo Cons often cite Edmund Burke as a influence. I can see why. His tract against the French Revolution asked what basis was there for the natural rights of men. What he meant was ' Any of my tenants get hold of these ideas back in Ireland, and it won't just be rent I stand to lose!'.

I hate having to write in this forced politness. Anyway, conservatives are liars, and people generally suck. But then again...

by redjade Wed Feb 16, 2005 20:10

Israel says Iran Will Know How to Build Bomb in 6 Months
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050216/2005-02-16T131714Z_01_L16612742_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-IRAN-DC.html

Israel said on Wednesday arch-foe Iran was just six months away from having the knowledge to build an atomic bomb, as Tehran accused the United States of using satellites "and other tools" to spy on its nuclear sites.

[....]

"We believe in six months from today they will end all the tests and experiments they are doing to have that knowledge."

The chief of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency said in January Iran would have the capability to produce enriched uranium, which can be used in both power stations and nuclear bombs, by the end of 2005.

[....]

→ Israel plans to buy 500 "bunker buster" bombs from the United States that could prove effective against Iran's nuclear facilities, many of which are underground.

by redjade Wed Feb 16, 2005 20:40

Ibrahim al-Jaafari is the new Prime Minister of Iraq....

I'm blogging the Iraq stuff here because I think there's a strong connection happening underneath the covers in all this - Iran may be currently a target for the NeoCon boys in DC, but the Axis of Evil™ guys in Iran seems to be placing their pieces on the Shia Iraq Chessboard...

All below is from Saint Juan Cole....
http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/jaafari-islam-to-be-source-of.html

→ 'USA Today called Jaafari a "secularist," by which it apparently means that he wears Western business suits and is married to a physician. He is not a secularist. He is the leader of an old-time revolutionary Shiite party that has for 48 years worked toward an Islamic republic in Iraq.'

→ '....many in his party want women's testimony to be worth half that of a man's and want girls to inherit half what their brothers do.'

→ 'On the other hand, Jaafari wants to bring Muqtada al-Sadr into the new government.'

Whoa! Hey Righteous, read that one again....

→ → 'On the other hand, Jaafari wants to bring Muqtada al-Sadr into the new government.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr

East-Asia
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1cla3d5twjinc?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Nineteen+Eighty-Four

by pc Wed Feb 16, 2005 21:18

free republic headline Official: Iran Missiles Pose Threat to U.S. Interests in Iraq *shakes head*

by Peace On Earth Wed Feb 16, 2005 21:24

Iran and Syria, both locked in rows with the United States, said on Wednesday they would form a common front to face challenges and threats.

"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said in Tehran after meeting Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari.

Otari told reporters: "This meeting, which takes place at this sensitive time, is important, especially because Syria and Iran face several challenges and it is necessary to build a common front."

By Parisa Hafezi TEHRAN (Reuters) .... [1 of IMC: Please credit and link other press articles, with a short summary leading to link to the rest of story ]

by redjade Thu Feb 17, 2005 15:53

Is Cheney just capitalist scum, trading with the enemy during wartime, or something else going on?

Manchurian Candidate, but Persian? What the F*ck is going on here??
-rj

-- -- --
Business As Usual?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6982444/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/

Halliburton’s CEO says his company is pulling out of Iran. But a corporate subsidiary is still going ahead with a deal to develop Tehran’s natural gas fields

[....]

Halliburton’s new Iran contract, moreover, appears to suggest a far closer connection with the country’s hard-line government than the firm has ever acknowledged.

The deal, diplomatic sources tell NEWSWEEK, was signed with an Iranian oil company whose principals include Sirus Naseri, Tehran’s chief international negotiator on matters relating to the country’s hotly-disputed nuclear enrichment program—a project the Bush administration has charged is intended to develop nuclear weapons.

[....]

Halliburton’s new deal, in which it will participate in a $308 million project to develop Iran’s huge South Pars natural gas fields, was not at first publicly announced by the company.

[....]

→In addition, the role of Naseri—Iran’s nuclear negotiator—as a principal in Oriental Kish and the South Pars project has raised questions about the project.← Naseri, according to a Western diplomatic source, was a former senior Iranian diplomat who, until two years ago, served as Tehran’s ambassador to a permanent United Nations disarmament conference in Geneva. A couple of years ago, the diplomat said, Naseri left the Iranian government to get involved in the oil business and is widely known to be involved with Halliburton Product & Services in oil-field activities.

But when the U.S., its allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency recently stepped up pressure on Iran regarding its nuclear activities, the diplomat said, Naseri rejoined the Iranian team handling international negotiations. He is described as one of the Iranian's main negotiators in talks with the IAEA, Britain, France and Germany and is described as a "very slick and sophisticated" negotiator. This week, Naseri was reportedly in Vienna and also traveled to other European capitals in connection with the nuclear talks. Diplomats say he serves as a key advisor to Hassan Rowhani, Iran's hard-line national security advisor, on the nuclear issue.

by redjade Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:57

Russia to sell Syria anti-aircraft missiles
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=10793

Russia will sell Syria advanced missile systems, despite US and Israeli concerns that the weapons could end up in the hands of militants and terrorists in the Middle East. The Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement on Wednesday, saying that talks were underway with Damascus to supply it with Strelets short-range air defense missile systems.

-- -- --

Russia vows to support Iran’s nuclear program
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=10798

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday said he was convinced that Iran had no intention of developing nuclear weapons and pledged continued Russian support for the Islamic republic’s nuclear program.

by redjade Tue Feb 22, 2005 15:10

February 19, 2005

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/

by redjade Tue Feb 22, 2005 15:56

Iran prepares for war:

• Iran has announced that it's "making plans to engage in the type of 'asymmetrical' warfare used against American troops in neighboring Iraq."

• "In recent days, Iranian newspapers have announced efforts to increase the number of the country's 7-million-strong 'Basiji' militia forces, which were deployed in human wave attacks against Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s."

• "Iranian military authorities have paraded long-range North Korean-designed Shahab missiles before television cameras."

• Iran announced the largest war games in the country's history in December, "deploying 120,000 troops as well as tanks, helicopters and armored vehicles along its western border."

from:
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/02/iranian_prepara.html

by redjade Thu Mar 03, 2005 17:26

Laura @ 'War and Piece' writes:
''It is just hard to understand why the Bush administration has not insisted on questioning Khan....'

then quotes the following articles:
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001730.html

→ Washington Post:
Khan, who often sold his products through friends and intermediaries while he ran Pakistan's nuclear program, did not attend the meeting. He and several associates are under house arrest in Pakistan and are off-limits to U.S. and foreign interrogators.

But the IAEA learned enough about the meeting to prod Iran again about the offer, and last month Iranian official produced a copy for inspectors.

Two Western diplomats familiar with its contents described it as a five-point, phased plan in which the network offered to supply Iran with drawings for Pakistani centrifuges and then a starter kit of one or two centrifuges. Phase three included as many as 2,000 centrifuges, which could be used to enrich bomb-grade uranium. Auxiliary items for the centrifuges and enrichment process would have been delivered afterward, followed by reconversion and casting equipment for building the core of a bomb.

------ ------

→ LA Times:
A former CIA agent who worked in the region said the Reagan administration had "incontrovertible" knowledge of Pakistan's progress toward the bomb and Khan's central role in procuring material, but chose not to act.

The pattern and priorities had been established. Throughout the 1980s, the Reagan and Bush administrations sent $600 million a year in military and economic assistance to Pakistan for its help on Afghanistan, according to a report last month by the Congressional Research Service.

Not until the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan did the first President Bush reimpose sanctions on Pakistan, in 1990, for developing atomic weapons.

by mise Thu Mar 03, 2005 19:07

Russia Moved Iraqi WMD

Charles R. Smith
Thursday, March 3, 2005

Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon

According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.

"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security."

Iraq was just the beginning. "The war on terror" has just begun. Real American's need to wake up before it's too late.

by Gay_Warrior Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:03

Two young gay teens were hung in Iran for being homosexual. It is against sharia law and punishable by death.

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/iran_executes_2.html

A young lesbian was murdered last year. Thousands of gay/lesbians are tortured and killed every year in Iran.

stop the homophobic state sanctioned killing of gay and lesbians.

by John Deppensy Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:46

This whole thing is just a part of Bush his propagenda, the US only wants Iran his oil. And they are pissed that Iran manages to survive even with teh trade embargo on, not many countries can say the same. Even we people from EU know this all, the only once US is fooling is himself! It is vital for Iran to have a secundary power source, nuclaer source. It is not a mass destruction weapons, its simply a civilian center. Since the trade embargo is on for 40 years they are needed to make this.

by eeeekkkk Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:26

Britain and Iran clashed openly last night after a senior British official directly accused Tehran of supplying Iraqi insurgents with sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed eight British soldiers and two security guards since May.

The bombs, triggered when an infra-red beam is touched, have created havoc among British forces in southern Iraq. They release a projectile capable of penetrating armoured vehicles, against which the British army has virtually no defence.

The British official said that Iranian interference in Iraq could be related to British pressure on Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions. "It would be entirely natural that they would want to send a message 'Don't mess with us'," he said. An Iranian government spokesman rejected the British accusations and said it was opposed to the insurgency in Iraq.

by reality Check Sat Jan 21, 2006 19:12

OK So much for theory the reality is:
FACT---Iran is a terrorist State.
FACT---Iran's Government is trying to operate a nuclear reactor to enrich uranium to make a bomb.
Fact---The Whole world is against this.
Fact---It is Iran in violation of UN edicts and noone else.

Deductive Conclusion---The Iranian Gov't must listen to the wishes of the rest of the world and comply, or be willing to fight the rest of the world. for what they want.
just because they want what they want doesn't give them the right to it.

Observation: The World Didn't allow Hitler to do it in WWII. Will this generation stand up like our Grandfathers did?