Iran

[grimm]

Britain 'argues against Iran attack'

AFP.... From correspondents in London

January 23, 2005

FOREIGN Secretary Jack Straw has reportedly drawn up Britain's case against a military strike on Iran amid fears US President George W. Bush may seek support for a new conflict.

Mr Straw had produced a 200-page dossier that ruled out military action and made the case for a "negotiated solution" to thwart Iran's suspected ambition to produce nuclear weapons, The Sunday Times said.

It said a peaceful solution led by Britain, France and Germany was "in the best interests of Iran and the international community", while referring to "safeguarding Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology".

The dossier, entitled Iran's Nuclear Program, was quietly issued in the House of Commons on the eve of Mr Bush's inauguration last week for fear of provoking a public rift with Washington, the newspaper said.

However, it added that privately tensions were running high between the two nations.

The approach contrasts with the British government's two Iraq dossiers, which were trumpeted to make the case for joining the US-led invasion on March 2003.

The Sunday Times said the message that the British Government wanted no part in another war in the Middle East would be reinforced by Prime Minister Tony Blair. He is to meet Mr Bush in Brussels next month.

The paper said Mr Straw would also make the case when he met US secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice, a Bush confidante, in London next month.

The perception that the United States is embarking on a course of confrontation with Iran has grown since The New Yorker magazine reported this week that US commandos had been operating inside Iran since mid-2004, secretly scouting targets for possible air strikes.

The Pentagon attacked the story by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh as "riddled with errors of fundamental fact", but did not expressly deny conducting covert reconnaissance missions.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, declaring on a radio talk show this week that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of global problems, warned that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on its own to shut down Iran's nuclear program.

But Cheney played down the likelihood of US military action.

[darksoft]

Anything involving france and germany is immediately suspect. Especially france. That fucktard chirac has fucked things up enough.

[Almighty Colin]

I think Iran would be a VERY bad idea.

[JoesHO]

If we attack Iran, you can count on WW3

But Bush is gonna use Isreal to attack Iran
wich is actually the worst possible scenario IMHO

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@Jan 23 2005, 07:51 PM
If we attack Iran, you can count on WW3
With whom on each side? Who is ready to challenge the United States on the seas?

[Rolo]

Some say we have had WW3 for many years now, and that Antichrist will soon appear:

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm
http://www.leftbehind-themovie.com/

We are all doomed - and we should all blame Bush the warmonger :ph34r:



*we need a tinfoil hat smiley ;-)))

[Winetalk.com]

...and this si why I am against the idea of saving wines for 20 years before drinking them
;)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jan 23 2005, 05:09 PM
Some say we have had WW3 for many years now, and that Antichrist will soon appear:

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm
http://www.leftbehind-themovie.com/

We are all doomed - and we should all blame Bush the warmonger :ph34r:



*we need a tinfoil hat smiley ;-)))
Fuck!

Fine time I chose to quit drinking....

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jan 23 2005, 08:09 PM
*we need a tinfoil hat smiley ;-)))
Motion seconded

[Mike AI]

We are in WWIII.... Though some would claim ints WWIV

The problem of the middle east has to be solved in total. I know its unrelaistic, because a large mobilization militarily would probably be resisted, but we need to treat region as a whole. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia should all be overthrown. This is part of the same mess we had to clean up in WWII.... I blame the French and English for breaking up Ottoman Turk Empire.

:o

For the record, there are many steps besides all out war with Iran. Just taking out their nuclear weapons program would be a solid step. That or creatinga safe zone or 2 in Iran, like we did in Iraq for 10 years. It worked with the Kurds.
They are the most solid faction in Iraq.

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by Almighty Colin+Jan 23 2005, 05:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Almighty Colin @ Jan 23 2005, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@Jan 23 2005, 07:51 PM
If we attack Iran, you can count on WW3
With whom on each side? Who is ready to challenge the United States on the seas? [/b][/quote]
China and north korea and russia will be together and could offer a formidal air contest, and if they win the air the seas will fall..

germany could go on the side of the akis for lack of a beter word
Europe would split over the idea, and all of africa and all of middle east ( with exception of isreael) would be against us


I think India would be with us, and small asian countries, but again i believe the rest of asia ( indonesia specifically) will be against us

south america is a split too and could go either way.

ALLIES:

USA
Britain
Israel
India
other small european countries
Taiwan
South Korea
Japan
Canada
Mexico
Australia
Philipines
Greece
Italy
Spain

[grimm]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@Jan 23 2005, 04:51 PM
If we attack Iran, you can count on WW3

But Bush is gonna use Isreal to attack Iran
wich is actually the worst possible scenario IMHO
Exactly,

Using israel as a military force wouldn't work, and would sink us into a hole with the Muslim nations that we would never get out of.

The threat of force is a good thing to bring to the table, however, when pushing for IRan to join the global community.

[Mike AI]

Toppling the Iranian gov't and military is not tough, its the hanging around trying to put things together which is tough.

It would take less then 6 months to take down Iran.

It would take less then a month to take down Syria.

US Military strategic and tactical power is unmached by the rest of the world combined.

We also have an EXPERIENCED army. Do not underestimate what season troops can achive.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jan 23 2005, 05:09 PM
Some say we have had WW3 for many years now, and that Antichrist will soon appear:

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm
http://www.leftbehind-themovie.com/

We are all doomed - and we should all blame Bush the warmonger :ph34r:



*we need a tinfoil hat smiley ;-)))
Revelations 6:7, 6:8

When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, "Come!"

I looked, and there before me
wasa a pale horse!

Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him.

They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by ethe wild beasts of the earth



;)


When i read that the first time, i wondered why only a fourth of the earth, until i remembered 75-80% of the earth is water. Kinda makes even an jewish raised agnostic like me..wonder how whomever wrote that would know such a thing;)

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 23 2005, 05:24 PM
We are in WWIII.... Though some would claim ints WWIV

The problem of the middle east has to be solved in total. I know its unrelaistic, because a large mobilization militarily would probably be resisted, but we need to treat region as a whole. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia should all be overthrown. This is part of the same mess we had to clean up in WWII.... I blame the French and English for breaking up Ottoman Turk Empire.

:o

For the record, there are many steps besides all out war with Iran. Just taking out their nuclear weapons program would be a solid step. That or creatinga safe zone or 2 in Iran, like we did in Iraq for 10 years. It worked with the Kurds.
They are the most solid faction in Iraq.
as compared to what, the need for globalization, as a necessary lesson we did not learn from WW1. You cant leave capable nations out on an island with an isolationist policy and think good things are going to come from it:)

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 23 2005, 05:37 PM
Toppling the Iranian gov't and military is not tough, its the hanging around trying to put things together which is tough.

It would take less then 6 months to take down Iran.

It would take less then a month to take down Syria.

US Military strategic and tactical power is unmached by the rest of the world combined.

We also have an EXPERIENCED army. Do not underestimate what season troops can achive.
Mike I agree that we in the USA would be virtually impossible to take over, however I do not agree that we could take over the world either !

[grimm]

we are stretched pretty thin as it is. I wouldnt want to take on china right now;)

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by grimm@Jan 23 2005, 05:43 PM
we are stretched pretty thin as it is. I wouldnt want to take on china right now;)
Definatly not away, and especially not in taiwan we would suffer heavy casualties quickly

and i am afraid if we attack Iran, China will make its move on Taiwan cause they know we are thin too

I do not think china could attack us here though with any measure of success

[grimm]

the 6000 days are almost over, Bush is the messiah, and aftwerwards, all evil being vanquished, there will be the end of war. So pass the pipe and guard your grapes!

:rolleyes:

lol

[grimm]

as far as china goes.... we could just tell Taiwan to shut the hell up if they want us to keep having their back.

[grimm]

The End of Days is near.

See, The Hubbert Peak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

:zoinks:

[Almighty Colin]

Why would China try and take Taiwan just because the US was involved elsewhere? It already had that opportunity with both Iraq wars. The difficulty for China in taking Taiwan is not the placement of the US army but rather the 12 aircraft carrier battle groups that can be brought to bear on the situation.

China's airforce is not nearly as modern as the US airforce. The Russian airforce while large in numbers is completely underfunded. Between them, they have one aircraft carrier and it has only been at sea once.

I don't think either have a desire to face the US in battle over Iran.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@Jan 23 2005, 08:26 PM
China and north korea and russia will be together and could offer a formidal air contest, and if they win the air the seas will fall..

germany could go on the side of the akis for lack of a beter word
Europe would split over the idea, and all of africa and all of middle east ( with exception of isreael) would be against us


I think India would be with us, and small asian countries, but again i believe the rest of asia ( indonesia specifically) will be against us

south america is a split too and could go either way.

ALLIES:

USA
Britain
Israel
India
other small european countries
Taiwan
South Korea
Japan
Canada
Mexico
Australia
Philipines
Greece
Italy
Spain
That is absolutely profoundly absurd.

The combined air forces of China and Russia would not be a match for the United States. I suppose they could launch a nuclear attack, but they would be more damaged when the exchange was over than we would be from the first strike.

As it stands, the two of them pay very close attention to what the other is doing on one of the longest borders in the world, and have since way before anyone was allowed to say so in the United States without being accused of being "soft on communism."

North Korea can seriously damage us in one place only - South Korea.

India would very likely sit it out completely - the distrust they have for
the United States is only exeeded by their paranoia of China. The Phillipines military is bogged down with an Islamic insurgency, and the quality of forces is about that of the military we just crushed in Iraq. Canada and Australia, although no one should question the quality of the forces they do have, are insignificant as military forces against the likes of China or Russia. Israel and Tiawan have substantial forces, but absolutely none to spare from the threats they already face.

And Mexico? Gimme a break.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jan 23 2005, 08:37 PM
Toppling the Iranian gov't and military is not tough, its the hanging around trying to put things together which is tough.

It would take less then 6 months to take down Iran.

It would take less then a month to take down Syria.

US Military strategic and tactical power is unmached by the rest of the world combined.

We also have an EXPERIENCED army. Do not underestimate what season troops can achive.
Mike ... I don't dispute any of what you are saying about the abilities of the U.S. military to "take out" those governments.

What happens next? Have you learned fucking nothing from Iraq so far?

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 24 2005, 12:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 24 2005, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Jan 23 2005, 08:37 PM
Toppling the Iranian gov't and military is not tough, its the hanging around trying to put things together which is tough.

It would take less then 6 months to take down Iran.

It would take less then a month to take down Syria.

US Military strategic and tactical power is unmached by the rest of the world combined.

We also have an EXPERIENCED army. Do not underestimate what season troops can achive.
Mike ... I don't dispute any of what you are saying about the abilities of the U.S. military to "take out" those governments.

What happens next? Have you learned fucking nothing from Iraq so far? [/b][/quote]


Leave them to their own devices.... but if they organize any large army, or stockpile weapons, or are menaces - we wll come in and topple the next guy as well.

Maybe they will catch on by then. I am sure some of the neo-cons have some plans made up.

My point merely was we can do it. <_<

[Rolo]

Originally posted by grimm@Jan 23 2005, 06:09 PM
The End of Days is near.

See, The Hubbert Peak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

:zoinks:
Its doesn´t matter we have less than 10 years before global climate catastrophe:


Countdown to global catastrophe

The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already.

The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached.

The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every country, from national leaders down. It has been timed to coincide with Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union.

And it breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.

The report says this point will be two degrees centigrade above the average world temperature prevailing in 1750 before the industrial revolution, when human activities - mainly the production of waste gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which retain the sun's heat in the atmosphere - first started to affect the climate. But it points out that global average temperature has already risen by 0.8 degrees since then, with more rises already in the pipeline - so the world has little more than a single degree of temperature latitude before the crucial point is reached.

More ominously still, it assesses the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after which the two-degree rise will become inevitable, and says it will be 400 parts per million by volume (ppm) of CO2.

The current level is 379ppm, and rising by more than 2ppm annually - so it is likely that the vital 400ppm threshold will be crossed in just 10 years' time, or even less (although the two-degree temperature rise might take longer to come into effect).

"There is an ecological timebomb ticking away," said Stephen Byers, the former transport secretary, who co-chaired the task force that produced the report with the US Republican senator Olympia Snowe. It was assembled by the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK, the Centre for American Progress in the US, and The Australia Institute.The group's chief scientific adviser is Dr Rakendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The report urges all the G8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to double their research spending on low-carbon energy technologies by 2010. It also calls on the G8 to form a climate group with leading developing nations such as India and China, which have big and growing CO2 emissions.

"What this underscores is that it's what we invest in now and in the next 20 years that will deliver a stable climate, not what we do in the middle of the century or later," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on green issues who now advises business.

The report starkly spells out the likely consequences of exceeding the threshold. "Beyond the 2 degrees C level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly," it says.

"It is likely, for example, that average-temperature increases larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increased numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts. [They] could also imperil a very high proportion of the world's coral reefs and cause irreversible damage to important terrestrial ecosystems, including the Amazon rainforest."

It goes on: "Above the 2 degrees level, the risks of abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change also increase. The possibilities include reaching climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (which, between them, could raise sea level more than 10 metres over the space of a few centuries), the shutdown of the thermohaline ocean circulation (and, with it, the Gulf Stream), and the transformation of the planet's forests and soils from a net sink of carbon to a net source of carbon."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/enviro...sp?story=603975 (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=603975)

:ph34r:

[Almighty Colin]

PD,

Your new avatar is the best.

[Dravyk]

I miss the good old days when the U.S. would topple regimes covertly. :)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Dravyk@Jan 24 2005, 11:57 AM
I miss the good old days when the U.S. would topple regimes covertly. :)
Necessary when the USSR was around.

[overdose]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@Jan 23 2005, 04:51 PM
If we attack Iran, you can count on WW3

But Bush is gonna use Isreal to attack Iran
wich is actually the worst possible scenario IMHO
OMG. Do you think Bush will really do that?