For that reason, I call attention to this article in today's Los Angeles Times, sourced from the United Nations Agency which deals with issues of nuclear non-proliferation:

quote:

---

Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran.

---

quote:

---

No one really cares what you would and would not like.

---

Thanks for the link, Jeff.

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

In anycase...

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

No, the Government of Iran doesn't have to pay any attention to what I say. They may resort, as Cueball implies, to naked force to do whatever they like.

However, others, including babblers, DO think about the world in which they live, and the implications of everyone and his brother having nuclear weapons.

Gee, you are implying a lot there. I thought I clarified my earlier comment, but apparently to no avail. The comment was not personal, but general.

More generally, I am not entirely sure why it is that we assume that Iran has some special obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, to perform to the specification of the self-appointed "international community," to go the extra mile. Espcially when its main detractors the US and Israel, are nuclear armed to the teeth, and the latter in complete disregard for the NNP, which it hasn't even bothered to sign.

Under those circumstance, I find it a little odd that we (collectively speaking) feel that we deserve the ear of the Iranian government on this issue.

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I think Ahmadinejad is a dangerous person.

---

C'mon Jeff. It's known throughout the world now that nuke-naked oil-rich countries which have failed to sign "PSA" oil deals with Exxon-Mobil are just cruisin for a bruisin. The truth is, the hawks can't stand for all those oil profits to be spent on the Iranian people. It's a form of socialism, and it just won't be tolerated by the democratizers. They just can't go around like that on their side of the planet excluding big energy companies and the oil-deprived west. Who do they think they are ?.

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

The truth is, the hawks can't stand for all those oil profits to be spent on the Iranian people. It's a form of socialism,

---

I don't think spending for armaments is "a form of socialism", nor do I think it involves "spending on the Iranian people".

Nor is it correct that those concerned by an Iranian nuclear bomb should be labelled "hawks".

Usually, hawks are those who want a military confrontation. There may be hawks on the Iranian side as well as on the American side.

At this point in time anyone who's playing into the hysteria about Iran's "nuclear ambitions" is plumping for the American agenda - whether they call themselves pacifists or Republicans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
I agree that the President is a dangerous character. He is virulent and a puppet of the clerical circles. He holds extreme religious, millenialist beliefs.

---

quote:

---

At this point in time anyone who's playing into the hysteria about Iran's "nuclear ambitions" is plumping for the American agenda - whether they call themselves pacifists or Republicans.

---

So everyone who thinks Iran might be dangerous if armed with nuclear weapons is "plumping for the American agenda" even if they specifically say they OPPOSE the American agenda.

I am sorry, but I don't live in your black and white world.

US military intervention into Iran would be wrong. But Iranian development of an atomic bomb is nonetheless worrisome. If Iran has one, should Iraq get one next? What about Saudi Arabia?

quote:

---

It's kind of weird for western activists to get all exercised about Iran getting nuclear weapons when we haven't convinced our own governments closer to home to give up theirs.

---

By that logic people in Texas shouldn't belong to Amnesty international until Texas ceases capital punishment. Like so many discussions on the left, the debate often gets bogged down by those who believe we must choose between US imperialism and its opponents, and those who reject bad ideas regardless of their geographic origins. The more countries that have the bomb, the greater the likelihood that a knucklehead like Douglas MacArthur, Barry Goldwater or Mahmoud will get a hold of them and use them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minkepants:

By that logic people in Texas shouldn't belong to Amnesty international until Texas ceases capital punishment. Like so many discussions on the left, the debate often gets bogged down by those who believe we must choose between US imperialism and its opponents, and those who reject bad ideas regardless of their geographic origins. The more countries that have the bomb, the greater the likelihood that a knucklehead like Douglas MacArthur, Barry Goldwater or Mahmoud will get a hold of them and use them.

---

quote:

---

Like so many discussions on the left, the debate often gets bogged down by those who believe we must choose between US imperialism and its opponents,

---

Actually, "choose between me and the other guys" was precisely George Bush's line when 9-11 occurred. No nuance, or you "support the terrorists".

It should be noted, too, that people like Mercy actually KNOW there is more to the story. That's why they limit the demand to "at this point in time". Mercy wants me to shut up about Iran, because, as she says, "at this point in time" it is wrong to say anything critical of Iran.

But that means that we have to be willing to let political expediency determine what we say.

quote:

---

It should be noted, too, that people like Mercy actually KNOW there is more to the story. That's why they limit the demand to "at this point in time". Mercy wants me to shut up about Iran, because, as she says, "at this point in time" it is wrong to say anything critical of Iran.

---

Israel and the United States do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I read this on TAT and naturally assumed you were talking about our friend Dubya.

---

What if American war plans are relevant, but also what Iran might do with an atomic bomb?

Their neighbour, also a major oil resource has just been gutted by the world's largest oil consumer/ nuclear-equipped military power.

In light of peak oil and the reasonable assumption that competition for this resource will become more and not less intense in the future, Iran would do well to get a credible guard dog if it wants to preserve its sovereignty.

I don't approve of nuclear weapons in any nation's hands; but if some countries have them they can't very well proscribe other countries can they?

No, that would come off a little hypocritical now wouldn't it?

As for the line that, oh, well, this guy Ahmedinejad is a nutter, God knows what he is capable of, I just see thinly veiled racism, it's not a credible argument. Bush and Ohlmert are demonstratedly homocidal maniacs and they haven't used their nukes.

Even if Iran does have designs as a regional power its clear they would invite swift retribution were they to deploy nuclear weapons against for example Saudi Arabia.

quote:

---

I don't approve of nuclear weapons in any nation's hands; but if some countries have them they can't very well proscribe other countries can they?

No, that would come off a little hypocritical now wouldn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
What force is it which requires us to choose one of the two, while remaining utterly silent about the other?

---

Such as the politically-challenged people who can't make a distinction between (a) the present-day war drive of the most powerful nuclear-armed nation in the world and (b) the possibility that sometime in the future Iran might develop some kind of nuclear weapons capability, notwithstanding its repeated assertions that it has no such intentions (even though developing a nuclear capability might in fact prevent an attack on them).

Some unions and some nominal marxists were arguing during the 2002 coup attempt on Hugo Chavez in Venezuela that Chavez was a bad guy with a desire for hegemonic control.

Some unions and other nominal leftists argued during the succesful 1973 coup against Salvador Allende in Chile that Allende didn't respect organized labour.

Some civil libertarians argued during the 80s that the Sandidnistas didn't respect freedom of speech.

Some nominal progressives argued that Saddam Hussein really was a threat to humanity because he almost certainly posessed weapons of mass destruction.

In each and every case it turned out that the US administration (through the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or the White House) was using false information, funding dissent, and generally manipulating Western "progressives" to build their case.

I, for one, don't plan to fall for it. I don't want the US to declare war against Iran and I won't fall for the anti-Iran hysteria being drummed up right now.

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]

The doctrine of pre-emptive warfare for the US administration is little more than an excuse for expanding their grip on global resources and economy.

This administration is worse than the Nixon one, and may well suffer the same fate if it is not careful.

quote:

---

Sunday Times February 25, 2007

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

By Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if
the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly
placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is
becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The
Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to
resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if
Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British
intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a
lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even
possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside
the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear
that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful
fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for
them....

Link to full article

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

So, every country should have nukes? If Canada decided to produce nuclear bombs, you wouldn't object?

---

I think I was clear enough: there should be a global ban on nuclear weapons.

Canada has no compelling reason to develop a nuclear arsenal. In the inconceivable contingency that some foreign entity threatened Canada the United States would intervene; we're their pet and nobody else's. So it's a moot question I shan't answer.

Iran does have compelling reasons to develop a nuclear deterrent.

I think this is a key point; a lot of the hysteria around the possibility of an Iranian nuclear capability seriously entertains the possibility that they would actually USE the bloody things in a war of aggression. I think it's pretty clear that if they want them at all it is as a defensive weapon, to prevent other belligerents, in which the region abounds, from attacking them.

Who would Iran use nukes against, and why? And how would they manage this without inviting a stern response from the world's policeman?

Would Bushco be doing his little wardance with Iran right now if Iran had nukes? No fuckin' way, it would be a nonstarter.

Iran suffered decades of neocolonial rule at the hands of western powers. Presumably the current leadership are taking pains to defend their revolution against this amply demonstrated and very real threat. They must be shitting bricks right now!

Seriously, there's something genuinely insulting about the idea that Iran's leadership are somehow beyond the pale, an international pariah. Compared to the west they're a big fluffy kitten. Sure, we despise their prehistoric theocracy but do we let that cloud our judgement? Apart from the slugfest with Iraq a few years back, they're peacable. Given the role of oil exports in their economy, war is the last thing they need.

Would Israel have gone into Lebanon last year if the latter had nukes? Would Israel have gone into Lebanon if Israel didn't have nukes? Balance of power stuff in play here; and we simply can't expect Iran to observe the niceties when it's neighbour is being hung drawn and quartered by a colonial power, it's a fantastically unreasonable assumption.

Hell, a nuclear equipped Iran might have a calming effect on expansionist Israel.

And as other posters remark, in the context of Uncle Sam's saber rattling it is a MOST inopportune time to join the chorus of anti-Iran propaganda. Because you cannot, at THIS time, air legitimate greivances about the regime there and NOT be associated with a broad media campaign in the west to set up Iran as the new bogeyman.

Our energy would be better spent analyzing the deeper motives behind America's current brinkmanship in the region. Is this big shitfit happening NOW because the protofascists in the United States know they're out with the next election and time is short? Is it because, once Iran HAS nukes, there will be no way they'll be able to manipulate that country to their strategic advantage - ie suck out all their oil? We know Bushco are bullshitting - what's behind it? What's the real agenda?

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: Merowe ]

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: Merowe ]

quote:

---

Some unions and some nominal marxists were arguing during the 2002 coup attempt on Hugo Chavez in Venezuela that Chavez was a bad guy with a desire for hegemonic control.

Some unions and other nominal leftists argued during the succesful 1973 coup against Salvador Allende in Chile that Allende didn't respect organized labour.

Some civil libertarians argued during the 80s that the Sandidnistas didn't respect freedom of speech.

---

Well, I was alive and politically active during that entire time, and certainly was not supportive of any of those positions. On the contrary, in fact.

But let us grant your argument that some people were critical of the Sandinistas' policy on freedom of speech, and that they ought not to have been critical.

I fail to see how their error becomes an argument for keeping quiet about the dangers of Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons.

In fact, none of your examples, which refer to Latin American democratic socialist movements, have much of anything to do with Iran, which is a theocracy, and not socialist either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

I don't think spending for armaments is "a form of socialism", nor do I think it involves "spending on the Iranian people".

---

We all know about CIA-British meddling in Iran since Mossadegh, and that the U.S. is the most wasteful, oil-dependent nation in the world bar none. We also know that the U.S. shadow guv sold missiles to Iran to fund and wage proxy war against a nation of five million peasants in Nicaragua. The Clinton admin chose not to pursue Iraqgate allegations against Bush Senior and co., accusations that the Defence Dept itself and western corporations aided and abetted Saddam's buildup of chemical and biological weapons and even nuclear ambitions. Canada's Gerald Bull dealt with the devil as well. So let's not be naive about our so-called democratizers.

quote:

---

Nor is it correct that those concerned by an Iranian nuclear bomb should be labelled "hawks".

---

Democrats, Republicans, same difference. They both vote for warfiteering at taxpayer's expense over the long run. And it's been one long hustle of the American taxpayers since Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. And for a long time before that.

quote:

---

Usually, hawks are those who want a military confrontation. There may be hawks on the Iranian side as well as on the American side.

---

I think there are religious zealots who might be crazy enough to provoke the psycopathic U.S. military and hawks in both Demcocrat and Republican parties, yes.

quote:

---

Those who do not wish to have Iran attacked, but at the same time are concerned about what Ahmadinejad might do, are doves, not hawks.

---

Then why not attack North Korea ?. The hawks threatened a non-nuclear NK with incineration over several decades. They've negotiated a lowering of trade sanctions recently. So why doesn't Iran receive the same wide swath granted oil-poor North Korea while that country was re-starting its nuclear weapons program ?.

Iran is still poor and has a high infant mortality. They're short of people too since the western world exclusively armed Iraq for the first three years of the Iran-iraq war. Iran, a desert country, needs power to electrify its growing economy. Gerald Ford and Dick Cheney said as much in the late 1970's. UN agencies for developement in the third world cite electrical power developement as being crucial for pumping water and sewage in order to reduce infant mortality below some number per so many births. Ahmadinejad has not violated any NNP agreement as far as the IAEA can tell.

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

I don't think spending for armaments is "a form of socialism", nor do I think it involves "spending on the Iranian people". \

---

Your response does not explain why you are pretending that the Iranian theocracy is "a form of socialism", as you had claimed.

All of the rhetoric in the world about the events of 1953, when an Iranian socialist WAS overthrown, will not make Iran "socialist", nor will it make its arms programme "spending on the Iranian people."

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I wrote:
Your response does not explain why you are pretending that the Iranian theocracy is "a form of socialism", as you had claimed.

---

It was a figure of speach. I should have place quotation marks around "socialist" so as not to confuse the issue for non-socialists such as yourself. Jeff, the hawks think we are quote-unquote socialists in Canada. \

Mossadegh wasn't a socialist either, but that made no diff to the hawks then as much as it doesn't matter now. Follow the "PSA's", from 1990's Russia to Iraq and Iran today.

The Talibanization of Pakistan and Afganistan was to prevent the spread of secular socialism in that region of the world in the 1980's. Militant Islam is preferred to democracy as far as the hawks are concerned. These theocratic feudalists like Khomeini past gained support by promising social democracy to millions of people. Once in power, social justice is forgotten about or delayed for whatever reasons and brutality of the theocracies becomes evident. The idea is to prevent real socialism and social democracy from happening. Chaos and repression of millions of people is usually a means to an end for the hawks.

quote:

---

All of the rhetoric in the world about the events of 1953, when an Iranian socialist WAS overthrown, will not make Iran "socialist", nor will it make its arms programme "spending on the Iranian people."

You sound like one of their p.r. guys.

---

quote:

---

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda....

Link to article

---

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
We don't know what their true agenda is, and I think one of them is to foment chaos as well in maintaining higher oil prices in their favour. "

---

The Telegraph
US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:

Are you referring to Iran or the US?

---

Iran. And the U.S. is obviously interested in "opening up" new oil markets for American energy companies. Someone once said the the real economic agenda around the world centres around three commodities: oil, weapons, and drugs.

quote:

---

However, at the moment the nuke issue really isn't pertinent to the problem except as a convenient red herring.

---

Exactly.

I don't have a problem with the rational reasons for Iran to have nuclear weapons. After suffering two coups and an attempted third via Saddam, they have a right to be freaked out, especially now. I do have a problem on the basis of "shit happens." people who rationally buy guns to protect their families, as we all know, more often wind up shooting their realtives rather than burglars. I don't like proliferation because it increases the probability that some idjit somewhere will use them. But, again, this is a distraction from the real iussue, which is that ALL the reasons being trotted out for the next war are bullshit. CNN repeated a story several times that Iran might be plotting to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and that this would throw the global oil market into chaos. later on an analyst pointed out how unlikely this was as doing so would strangle iran's exports and economy in the process. The nuke issue is going to be just one of an array of pretexts we will be presented with to justify the war. Remember yellow cake? Mobile weapons labs? Aluminum tubes? Powell's vial of anthrax?

The sad thing is Iran could be America's ally by now, just as Viet Nam could have been decades earlier, Ho Chi Minh making his first rry to befriend the Americans in 1919. But, sadly, America doesn't want allies, it wants slave states. So, over and over, it winds up with neither.

There's a few things I've heard via radio, so I would invite others to confirm, deny or provide links:

-There' was a massive sympathy march immediately after 9/11 on the streets of Tehran.

-Iran tried to approach the US just a few years ago to thaw the relationship, starting from a position that would have offered huge concessions including the suspension of it's nuclear program, but was sent packing

I've also heard it said that Iran very quietly provided assistance when the invasion of Afghanistan occured. Does anyone know any links about this? Regardless of your position on that war, it certainly doesn't reveal Iran as America's enemy.

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

OK, here's a cockamamie idea. Since CNN is dutifully trotting out the lies as it does before every american war, maybe a protest at Rogers demanding they drop CNN would be in order. After all, they wouldn't allow Al-Jazerra on free TV because it's "hate speech" and "propaganda" right?... It wouldn't work, of course, but it's the kind of thing that might just get coverage way out of proportion to turnout. FOX and CNN would cover it ad infinitum to point out the censorious nature of the left, and those commie canadians daring to criticize muricuh. It wouldn't work but CNN could wind up embarassed just the same. FAUX at least flies it's colors openly. Maybe branding CNN as FOX TOOs could be fun, and maybe derail the bs machine just a little

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]