Iran Resumes Uranium Conversion Efforts - 20 minutes ago

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


As I wrote earlier, there was a Hersh article in the New Yorker in January indicating that some sort of military action (though not a full-scale invasion) is a distinct possibility. In fact, we've been doing some covert recon in Iran to indentify WMD targets. According to Hersh's sources, Rummy et al. are under the delusion that a limited invasion targetting their WMD facilities (they estimate that 3/4 of these facilities can be destroyed in air strikes avoiding population centers, etc.) would shatter "aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy" and precipitate a revolution.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

So are we going to go, not by stated admin policy, but by an article by a reporter with an agenda, based on unnamed sources, who also have an agenda? If that is the case, would you like to see some equally well sourced material on the connection between Iran and Al Qaeeda?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Of course ethical values have to do with law- why else have laws against slavery or torture or child labour ?

I reckon the reason is to protect the citizens of a country. Often laws coincide with ethical behaviour but not always, for example, laws allowing corporations as legal entities, or copyright law, or the US patent law as it is now.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The question is if the action was similar to terrorists in an ethnicall relevant way. Going abroad to kill a suspected terrorist, who is being given effective sanctuary, is NOT equivalent to the deliberate murder of civilians.

Both are murders.

A suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Recently we just had a case where an innocent man in the UK was shot dead by trigger happy policemen.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Both are murders.

A suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Recently we just had a case where an innocent man in the UK was shot dead by trigger happy policemen.

I suspect its rather difficult for Israeli operatives to walk into a country like Syria, and arrest a Hamas leader, and take him back to Israel for trial. Of course if Syria were cooperating against terrorism, THEY could arrest him and extradite him.

Israel DID in fact remove Adolph Eichman and take him to Israel for trial, but it was far easier to that in Argentina then it is in Syria.

[GePap]

The same boring, tired, self-serving statements made all the time.

To Israeli posters and supporters: I don;t care if you guys feel threatened. Its that simple. I value no human life anymore than other human life. Can the "they hate us" whines. Israelis want to be a normal state? Then act as one. Please, anyone who thinks Israel is in any danger any longer is smoking some strong stuff, or simply is stuck in self-pity mode for too long. So Iran doesn;t recognize Israel..wow, SO? But of course, point me to the Iranian divisions poised for the Invasion, or the crack Hizbullah strikes teams about to storm Tel Aviv

As for the nature of Iran's regime: how is it any more autocratic, expansionist, aggressive than its nuclear neighbor Pakistan? All the same fears about security forces going rogue and playing with nukes were trot around about Pakistan, yet somehow the Pakistani secret services, while helping the Taliban and AQ, never seemed to have the stomach to give them nukes. And all of a sudden I am to believe that the Revolutionary Guard will? Anyone care to rationalize that bull?

Lets see, the last states to be invaded in the ME by a neighbor were:

Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait.

Wonder then why the Iranians, who seem themselves as a rightfull power in the ME (given their historical power, size, and relative wealth), and suffered hudreds of thousands dead from the invasion of its neighbor, a neighbor that got plenty of passive support, if not active support, from not only the US and Europeans but fellow Arab states, with one nuclear neighbor and another nuclear state within striking range that calls Iran it biggest enemy and regularly talks about attacking it...yeah, I wonder why Iranians might think about a nuclear program. Must be cause they are so evil. .

Iran shouldn;t have nukes.North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, the UK, and the US should not have nukes either.

Simply stated, no one should. A comprehensive global ban would bhe the solution to this crisis, but the hypocratical and self serving states that tried to force the nuclear monopoly on the world, and the handfull of states that for their own reasons refused to sign the deal, won;t ever do it. So why then shall we expect the 190 other states out there, specially the 40 or so that could get nukes, to simply sit back and not have them eventually?

For all the righteous and baseless indignation, the Iranians have every right by the NPT as they signed, to enrich uranium, because they have every right to nuclear power. They broke IAEA regulations by having secret nuclear facilties. Let them be taken to the Security Council for it. And then the Iranians have every right to leave the NPT whenever they want to. That is what the right of national soverignty means. As long as the nuclear h0olders also stanbd of national soverignty, then nuclear proliferation will continue, specially amongst regimes with good reasons for worry.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"The same boring, tired, self-serving statements made all the time."


Speak for yourself.

"to Israeli posters and supporters: I don;t care if you guys feel threatened. Its that simple. I value no human life anymore than other human life. Can the "they hate us" whines. Israelis want to be a normal state? Then act as one. Please, anyone who thinks Israel is in any danger any longer is smoking some strong stuff, or simply is stuck in self-pity mode for too long. So Iran doesn;t recognize Israel..wow, SO? But of course, point me to the Iranian divisions poised for the Invasion, or the crack Hizbullah strikes teams about to storm Tel Aviv "


Ya, know the difficulty of launching a conventional invasion just MIGHT be why they want nukes. Iran of course doesnt just not recognise Israel - KSA, algeria, Pakistan, also dont among others. Iran is unique in its continuing to threaten israels destructions, and its antisemitic rhetoric.

"As for the nature of Iran's regime: how is it any more autocratic, expansionist, aggressive than its nuclear neighbor Pakistan? All the same fears about security forces going rogue and playing with nukes were trot around about Pakistan, yet somehow the Pakistani secret services, while helping the Taliban and AQ, never seemed to have the stomach to give them nukes. And all of a sudden I am to believe that the Revolutionary Guard will? Anyone care to rationalize that bull?"

We have no idea what the ISI might have done if 9/11 had not changed the political equation in Pakistan. However ISI never had the overt control of the Paki govt in the period since Pak acquired nukes that the mullahs have in Iran.

"Lets see, the last states to be invaded in the ME by a neighbor were:

"Wonder then why the Iranians, who seem themselves as a rightfull power in the ME (given their historical power, size, and relative wealth), and suffered hudreds of thousands dead from the invasion of its neighbor, a neighbor that got plenty of passive support, if not active support, from not only the US and Europeans but fellow Arab states,"

at a time when those states feared Iran taking over the gulf states, which was also part of Iranian rhetoric since the revolution, IIRC.

" with one nuclear neighbor and another nuclear state within striking range that calls Iran it biggest enemy and regularly talks about attacking it"

Israel calls Iran its enemy only because Iran threatens Israel with destruction. If Iran doesnt want Israel to consider Iran its enemy, it can easily change this by NOT calling for Israels destruction. Youve really got the cart before the horse here.


"...yeah, I wonder why Iranians might think about a nuclear program. Must be cause they are so evil. . "

They are.

Iran shouldn;t have nukes.North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, the UK, and the US should not have nukes either.

Simply stated, no one should. A comprehensive global ban would bhe the solution to this crisis, but the hypocratical and self serving states that tried to force the nuclear monopoly on the world,"

IIUC this simply mistates the history of the NPT. lots of non-nuclear states, countries like Germany that did NOT want to acquire nukes, supported the passage of NPT and recognized that under cold war conditions it was hard to get total disarmament. Since then the US and Russia have made huge strides in nuclear disarmament. At the same time as they did so, they saw the rise of new nuclear powers, and rogue states. which have complicated matters.


" and the handfull of states that for their own reasons refused to sign the deal, won;t ever do it. So why then shall we expect the 190 other states out there, specially the 40 or so that could get nukes, to simply sit back and not have them eventually?"


Cause thats the treaty, and thats what the world states want. You will note the EU3 included a major nonnuclear power, and that the most recent IAEA vote on Iran was unanimous.

"For all the righteous and baseless indignation, the Iranians have every right by the NPT as they signed, to enrich uranium, because they have every right to nuclear power. They broke IAEA regulations by having secret nuclear facilties. Let them be taken to the Security Council for it. And then the Iranians have every right to leave the NPT whenever they want to. That is what the right of national soverignty means."

National soveriengnty means whatever the actors in world politics choose it to mean. Nuclear weapons didnt exist at the time of Westphalia. They existed at the time the UN Charter was written, but were only in the possesion of the United States. ( I could have the charter signing date wrong)

"As long as the nuclear h0olders also stanbd of national soverignty, then nuclear proliferation will continue, specially amongst regimes with good reasons for worry. "

The Iraqi regime that invaded Iran has been overthrown, and Iraq has new leadership that seems quite willing to live in peace with Iran.

The notion of Israel attacking Iran without provocation, absent Iranian nukes, is absurd.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by GePap
.

"For all the righteous and baseless indignation, the Iranians have every right by the NPT as they signed, to enrich uranium, because they have every right to nuclear power.

it is of course quite possible to have nuclear power without doing your own enrichment, IN fact the EU3 offered Iran an assured supply of nuclear fuel, IIUC.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Speak for yourself.

Why? I actuaslly make new statements, instead of posting a bunch of relatively irrelevant articles and selectively bolding random bits.

Ya, know the difficulty of launching a conventional invasion just MIGHT be why they want nukes. Iran of course doesnt just not recognise Israel - KSA, algeria, Pakistan, also dont among others. Iran is unique in its continuing to threaten israels destructions, and its antisemitic rhetoric.

Oh, of course, it all makes sense now..the Iranians will invest billions in creating a few nukes simply so that Tehran, a City with twice as many human beings as Israel, can get nuked. I see it all now......

I am sorry, but I find that so utterly absurd as to be laughable. Oh, and given that Iran is one of the few islamic states with a jewish population you can call sizeable left, their anti-semitic actions have seemingly not kept up with their statements fully..

We have no idea what the ISI might have done if 9/11 had not changed the political equation in Pakistan. However ISI never had the overt control of the Paki govt in the period since Pak acquired nukes that the mullahs have in Iran.

We have a damn good clue what they didn;t do before 9/11. Care to explain why the ISI would delay for years not giving their allies WMD tech? We don;t even need to speculate to burry the old canard of groups not directly controlled by a state being simply handed WMD's.

"The Mullahs" have had chemical weapons since the 1980's. For some reason, even given their terrible rhetoric, none of these ended in Hizbullah hands, even though the logistics of giving it to them would not be difficult. Care to explain 15+ years of not giving Hizbullah these weapons, if the Mullah;s really give a **** about Israel?

at a time when those states feared Iran taking over the gulf states, which was also part of Iranian rhetoric since the revolution, IIRC.

So that excuses it? I guess Saddam's usefulness for you ran out and why you backed his removal so heartily...

Israel calls Iran its enemy only because Iran threatens Israel with destruction. If Iran doesnt want Israel to consider Iran its enemy, it can easily change this by NOT calling for Israels destruction. Youve really got the cart before the horse here.

Sorry, but in that relation one sides has nukes and the ability to deliver them, the other does not. You know which is which. Besides, Israel needs boogeyman. Syria doesn;t cut it anymore.

They are.

IIUC this simply mistates the history of the NPT. lots of non-nuclear states, countries like Germany that did NOT want to acquire nukes, supported the passage of NPT and recognized that under cold war conditions it was hard to get total disarmament. Since then the US and Russia have made huge strides in nuclear disarmament. At the same time as they did so, they saw the rise of new nuclear powers, and rogue states. which have complicated matters.

What a bunch of self-serving bull.

Yes, plenty of states have not moved to develop nuclear wepoans of their own, for a great and varied number of reasons. As for "disarmament", the weapons levels at the end of the cold war were absurd and beyond all rational need. Both the US and Russia still have sufficeint strategic weapons and delivery systems to wipe each other out, and both plan for new generations of weapon systems. The nuclerization of South Asia and the handfull of possible NK nukes in no way justifies 3000+ strategic nuclear warheads in the US and Russian arsenals. But if these are the rationalizations you need to make for youself, go right ahead.

Cause thats the treaty, and thats what the world states want. You will note the EU3 included a major nonnuclear power, and that the most recent IAEA vote on Iran was unanimous.

It should have been, as Iran clearly broke NPT rules.

National soveriengnty means whatever the actors in world politics choose it to mean. Nuclear weapons didnt exist at the time of Westphalia. They existed at the time the UN Charter was written, but were only in the possesion of the United States. ( I could have the charter signing date wrong)

So are you backing a weakening of the Westphalia system ?

The Iraqi regime that invaded Iran has been overthrown, and Iraq has new leadership that seems quite willing to live in peace with Iran.

In a couple of years there might not be an Iraq. That does not erase Pakistan from the map though.

The notion of Israel attacking Iran without provocation, absent Iranian nukes, is absurd.

Really?

I agree, it is absurd. As absurd as a first strike by Iran.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it is of course quite possible to have nuclear power without doing your own enrichment, IN fact the EU3 offered Iran an assured supply of nuclear fuel, IIUC.

Which is a load of bull. Can you name a single state with a peacefull nuclear program that does not refine any of its own fuel?

Why should Iran give up what everyone else has and place its own nuclear program at the whim of foreign states? Cause LoTM doesn;t like them?

[Flip McWho]

On the one hand you don't really nukes to propagate.

On the other hand its a tad hypocritical to not let Iran get nukes.

Which hand must be severed?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az


I thought we were talking about Intl. law that pertained to relations between nations.

And indeed if you look through the links I posted you will see that they do pertain to legal agreements between sovereign nations in different parts of the world.


Do you think that the United Kingdom would reply to Irish-American funded I.R.A. action on British soil (or elsewhere) by car bombings or assassinations in Boston, Chicago, New York or San Francisco ?

The 9/11 terrorists bought tickets on transcontinental flights in the US. Ergo, I, who have bought tickets on transcontinental flights in the US, have acted in ways similar to terrorists. I could go on and on.

lord of the mark


You could, but it would be a remarkably fatuous comparison, and unworthy of you.

Have you been given government sanction before purchasing said tickets (with government funds) to go abroad and with government funds to rent properties, cars, procure weapons or plant bombs in telephones or cars on the territory of sovereign nations in defiance of their national laws and international law and kill people ?


The Wrath of God hit team were, by the then Israeli government.

In fact under international law, IIUC, said states have a legal obligation NOT to provide sanctuary to terrorists.

lord of the mark


Interesting. The United States took the approach that people accused of being terrorists by the British Government or even wanted for questioning in connection with terrorist activities were entitled to a trial and legal representation, at the very least to determine whether or not they were the people they were alleged to be and if they were in fact terrorists.

Some in America believed (and still believe) that planting bombs on British soil or shooting British soldiers is a 'political' activity. Po Tay Toe, Po Tah Toe, obviously.

Israel just decided that this process was a tad long-winded, did it ?

As I've stated already, if you engage in acts contrary to national and international law that involve the deaths of civilians in pursuit of avowedly 'political' aims, I don't see that you can complain if a government decides to treat you with the same approach, but unfortunately it does sometimes happen that 'accidents' occur:

In Lillehammer, Norway, on 07 January 1974, Mossad agents mistakenly killed Ahmad Boushiki, an Algerian waiter carrying a Moroccan passport, whom they mistook for PLO security head Ali Ahmad Salameh, believed to have masterminded the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics [Salameh was killed in a 1979 car-bomb explosion in Lebanon].

Following the attack, the Mossad agents were arrested and tried before a Norwegian court. Five Israeli agents were convicted and served short jail sentences, though Israel denied responsibility for the murder. In February 1996, the Israeli government agreed to compensate the family of Ahmad Boushiki.

On 15 November 1995, Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an Israeli citizen. Following the controversy over the failure of intelligence to protect Rabin, and the embarrassment over the mistaken assassination of a Swedish national, the Director Geneneral of Mossad, known only as 'S', was forced into retirement.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/israel/mossad.htm

In July 1973, Raphael joined a hastily assembled team of Mossad agents to track down Ali Hassan Salameh, Black September's operation chief in Europe and thought to be the mastermind of the Munich massacre. In the sedate Norwegian village of Lillehammer, the team gunned down a Moroccan waiter named Ahmed Bouchiki instead of Salameh. Raphael and five other operatives were captured and tried, severely compromising the reputation of the Mossad.

Sylvia's botched assassination would prove a prelude to another mistake, this time from the other side.

In September 1985, Force 17, a splinter group of the PLO, murdered three Israeli tourists on a yacht off the coastal resort of Larnica in Cyprus. They claimed publicly that the victims were Mossad agents, one of whom was the prized Sylvia Raphael. They believed they had their revenge.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1123035525525&p=1006953079845

As the old New Wave song goes- 'violence grows, violence grows'.

Now of course, President Bush is saying he wouldn't rule out some form of military action against Iran over its resumption of uranium conversion despite the fact that :

Iran says, correctly, that it is quite entitled to have such a capacity under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime, providing of course its activities are fully monitored and it is seen as behaving properly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4145862.stm

Now which country is it that has cruise missiles, has threatened nuclear capability, has shielded terrorists, abetted Sunni fundamentalists to come to power in a country which then provided a base for terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Centre in New York, is run by a military dictatorship, has an atrocious human rights record and brought back sharia law in 1977(!!!) and has been to war with its neighbour more than once ?


Oh, that's Pakistan.


Sylvia Raphael:

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
brilliant idea to get the US armed forces bogged down in Iraq at a time like this - Pakistan successfully testing nuclear weapons, North Korea and Iran developing them - thank you neocons

[Ramo]

Its good to have a contingency plan, and certainly to determine how vulnerable the sites are.

In what contingency would the plan go into effect? Should we secretly send commandos into North Korea to mark WMD sites?

As for Hersh's sources, I presume they continue to be folks inside CIA who hate Rummy with a passion, and are not above twisting things to put him in the worst possible light. Indeed, they are not above leaking top secret info, in violation of the law.

You realize that there is some distinction between whistle-blowing on operations without Congressional authorization that may lead to another disastrous war, and, say, leaking top secret info soley to smear a whistle blower as certain very powerful member(s) of this Admin have done? Context is important, y'know.

They have not always leaked to Hersh in disagreement with the current admin - they also leaked material some years back justifying the continued holding of Jonathan Pollard. Oddly though, the leaks that make their way to Sy Hersh ALWAYS lean a certain way with regard to middle east politics. Youd think such a widely heralded investigative reporter might OCCASSIONALLY find something that leans in a different direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "one-sided." Are you trying to tell me that there are PLO spies lurking in the upper echelons of this gov't?

So are we going to go, not by stated admin policy, but by an article by a reporter with an agenda,

Since when has "stated admin policy" had any relation to fact? Incidentally, the Admin has NOT categorically denied that we've been sending troops into Iran (although they denied that we've been sending troops into Iran indentify targets obviously).

based on unnamed sources, who also have an agenda? If that is the case, would you like to see some equally well sourced material on the connection between Iran and Al Qaeeda?

Are you seriously comparing the guy who broke My Lai and Abu Ghraib, probably the best investigative reporter in the country, with the likes of Judy Miller? On what basis do you say that he's careless about his sources?

My understanding is that the negotiations would go on parallel tracks. Prior to negotiations there initial position is that they would not disarm till a comprehensive peace is reached. Whether, in the course of negotiations, they would agree to earlier disarmament is an unknown.

and profoundly irrelavant, as Iran refuse to negotiate with Israel over anything.

As I said, my source differs from your account. It may be "irrelevant" but you're the one who brought it up.

Iran continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Iran continues to support and fund terrorists groups that commit terrorist attacks on Israel, and which oppose the peace process.

And has Iran ever provided Hezbollah with chemcial or biological weapons?

And Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, which would make the destruction of Israel a potential reality. Security against which is to be provided by the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction, with all its questionable assumptions about how the armed forces of an attacked nation would behave after a first strike had destroyed their society - assumptions that were questionable during the cold war, but were good enough due to the caution and fundamental "this worldiness" of the Soviet leaders.

If Israel can rely on MAD, what makes Iran's nukes so much more dangerous than Pakistan's?

If theyre not equivalent, then this discussion of Pakistan is not particularly relevant here. We can have a long discussion of US-Pakistani relations, or of the dangers from the Pakistani bomb. None of which, IMO, make the question of the Iranian bomb less urgent.

Pakistan is extremely important. Israel isn't the only nuclear power Iran's worried about. It doesn't help us with the Iranians when Perv announces things like fancy new ballistic missile systems in the midst of this crisis.

Look, there's a clear double standard. Dear Leader refuses to sign the CTBT and we look the other way regarding our allies nuclear programs. Nukes will continue to be extremely popular among the Iranian people until such blatant hypocrisy is addressed. This is not just bleeding heart whining, but a fundamental problem in trying to get Iran to disarm.

[Az]

Do you think that the United Kingdom would reply to Irish-American funded I.R.A. action on British soil (or elsewhere) by car bombings or assassinations in Boston, Chicago, New York or San Francisco ?

If the perpetrators of the actions hid in the USA, and the USA would protect them? well, maybe not in the USA - but this has nothing to do with Intl. law.

If Israel can rely on MAD, what makes Iran's nukes so much more dangerous than Pakistan's?

Because Israel and Pakistan have no serious quarrel. Neither do Israel and Iran, really, but Iran always wants to stir **** up - only god knows why.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az

Do you think that the United Kingdom would reply to Irish-American funded I.R.A. action on British soil (or elsewhere) by car bombings or assassinations in Boston, Chicago, New York or San Francisco ?

If the perpetrators of the actions hid in the USA, and the USA would protect them? well, maybe not in the USA - but this has nothing to do with Intl. law.

.

Which international law or laws give Israel the right to send agents of the State of Israel to non-belligerent sovereign nations abroad in order to kill citizens of either those states or from other states, in defiance of the law pertaining in those nations or international laws ?


There was presumably a reason why Israel didn't notify the governments of Norway or Italy or France about the activities of its assassination squads.

Note- I'm not saying that terrorists don't have a reasonable expectation of being treated the same way they treat others, but this itself is not legal justification.