Another War for Israel [Archive]

halva

05-12-2006, 08:53 PM

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8980
May 12, 2006
April 18, 2006: America's Step Off the Nuclear Edge
Take the nuclear option off the table now!
by Jorge Hirsch

Remember the old cartoons where the character walks off a cliff and continues walking on thin air until he looks down and plunges? America walked off the cliff on April 18, 2006, and has been suspended above the nuclear abyss since, set to plunge down at a moment's notice. Meanwhile, it is in a catatonic state of collective stupor, or perhaps it should be called collective suspended animation. Even according to Fox News, a U.S. nuclear strike against Iran is now only a question of when, not if.

Since April 18, 2006, America has been illegally and immorally threatening to use its weapons of mass destruction against a state that is not known with certitude to possess any weapons of mass destruction, to prevent that state from acquiring knowledge that is being acquired by other states at this very moment.

Since April 18, 2006, America has shattered the legal and moral basis of all international agreements relating to arms control and nonproliferation to which it is a party, and indeed has punctured the legal and moral basis for the United Nations itself.

And we all see it coming, slowly and inexorably. The actual attack was not in April as was predicted in this column, so it may be June or August, any time before the November election that could change the face of Congress. Those who want it and those who don't are equally impotent to influence the course of events to speed it up or slow it down: it follows a script in which every cartoon character repeats the same tired clichés that can be predicted without any imagination [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. All the while, the U.S. plan to nuke Iran continues to move forward, focused and unrelenting.

The Evidence That Iran Will Be Nuked

The single focus of this column for many months has been to gather and expose the evidence that a nuclear strike against Iran is being planned, not just as a contingency but as a deliberate, premeditated goal that guides the actions of this administration. A brief recap:

Sept. 29, 2005: "Because when Iran's case comes before the S[ecurity] C[ouncil] and no sanctions are passed due to Russia's and China's vetoes, the U.S. will be left with no diplomatic options – not a desirable position to be in, unless the purpose all along was to resort to a military option."
Oct. 7, 2005: "Bunker-busting nuclear gravity bombs (B61-11 or similar) will be more effective than conventional ones in destroying Iranian underground installations, and at the same time will send a clear message to Iran that any response would be answered with an immensely more devastating nuclear attack."
Oct. 17, 2005: "[A] nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT [Nonproliferation Treaty] signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own…."
Nov. 1, 2005: "The real reason for nuking Iran, however, is none of the above. It was spelled out with surprising candor in the Pentagon draft document 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations'…."
Nov. 12, 2005: "The IAEA resolution of Sept. 24, 2005, allows the United States to carry out a nuclear attack against Iran 'legally.'"
Nov. 21, 2005: "Because the United States is counting on the 'nuclear option' to ensure the success of military action against Iran, it is not seriously pursuing diplomatic alternatives, such as negotiating directly with Iran…."
Nov. 26, 2005: "John Bolton … will be the ideal person to explain to the world, after the fact, why a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran was justified."
Dec. 5, 2005: "The much-touted nuclear deterrent is not a credible strategy against 'rogue' non-nuclear nations, because nobody believes that the U.S. will use nuclear weapons in the scenarios described in the policy documents. They are just empty words – until the U.S. demonstrates, by doing it once, that it is actually willing to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. And it is planning to do just that in the upcoming war with Iran."
Dec. 16, 2005: "In preparation for the nuclear strike on Iran, the Bush administration in its second term has deployed into key positions hardliners that have both expertise in nuclear weapons and a known history of advocating the aggressive use thereof."
Dec. 28, 2005: "The U.S. will claim the right under Chapter VII of the UN to enforce UNSCR 1540 by aerial bombing of Iran's nuclear and missile facilities. … A supporting role will be provided by UNSC 'anti-terrorism' Resolution 1373, adopted after Sept. 11, also under UN Chapter VII…."
Jan. 9, 2006: "15 Reasons Why Iran Will Be Nuked…"
Feb. 20, 2006: "The United States is preparing to enter a new era: an era in which it will enforce nuclear nonproliferation by the threat and use of nuclear weapons. The use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will usher in a new world order."
March 10, 2006: "Initially, it will seem that the use of tactical nuclear weapons was required by military necessity. Slowly, evidence will accumulate that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran was a premeditated act, following many years of planning…."
April 1, 2006: "Nuclear earth penetrating weapons may be used in the initial attack, and certainly will be used in the large scale attack that will follow…."
Independently, Michel Chossudovsky [1], [2] and others have analyzed the evidence and predicted the existence of a carefully crafted plan for a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran.

Then, on April 8, 2006, came the Seymour Hersh bombshell: "One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites." Finally, America paid some attention [.pdf]. But only briefly.

Seymour Hersh's and Other's Revelations

From independent sources, the Washington Post reported April 9 that "Pentagon planners are studying how to penetrate eight-foot-deep targets and are contemplating tactical nuclear devices." The New York Times reported that a senior Pentagon official said, "I've never heard the issue of nukes taken off or put on the table," which is hardly reassuring. Seymour Hersh's article further stated, "The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joints Chiefs of Staff," confirming my article of March 10, 2006: "Gen. Pace to Troops: Don't Nuke Iran. Illegal, Immoral Orders Should Be Disobeyed." As also predicted in my column, the "blame" for planning a nuclear attack is being put on the military.

In science, a key test of the validity of a theory is its ability to predict results of experiments before they are performed. The fact that I and others were able to predict the "Iran Plans" from analysis of data that are completely independent of Hersh's sources lends credibility both to Hersh's report and to our analysis and its conclusion: that "America is embarked in a premeditated path that will lead inexorably to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran in the very near future."

In a carefully calculated response, evidenced by the fact that Scott McClellan repeated the same two words eight times in the same press conference, the Hersh report was labeled "wild speculation" by the Bush administration. A spokeswoman for the Central Intelligence Agency stated, "The article contains information that is inaccurate." No explicit denial was issued by anyone in the administration.

On April 13, Donald Rumsfeld was directly asked by an al-Arabiya reporter: "Is there a nuclear option on the table or off the table?" Rumsfeld's answer: "The more anyone discusses this, the more misinformation gets communicated. The president has spoken on this repeatedly. There is no need for people who work for the president to rephrase anything he has said. He has said it all, and I'll leave it with him."

Off the Nuclear Cliff

But the president had not said it all yet. Rumsfeld was predicting what Bush would say just five days later. When asked on April 18, "Sir, when you talk about Iran and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?," Bush responded (watch it by clicking here): "All options are on the table." That was the watershed moment when America walked off the nuclear cliff.

Because, as President Bush himself said a few days later, "When people speak, it is important that we listen carefully to what they say and take them seriously."

President Bush has told the world that America, the greatest nuclear superpower, is considering using nuclear weapons against Iran, a non-nuclear state that does not have a military alliance with a nuclear state and is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, as well as of the chemical and biological weapons convention treaties.

What is the legal, moral, ethical, or logical argument now for America to demand that other countries not develop nuclear weapons, or any other "weapon of mass destruction," for that matter? What is the legal, moral, ethical, or logical argument now for "nonproliferation"? What is the legal, moral, ethical, or logical argument for demanding that Iran should not even have the knowledge, the know-how, or the capacity to ever build a nuclear weapon?

halva

05-12-2006, 08:53 PM

Since April 18, 2006, it is the United States' official policy that it will enforce nonproliferation of nuclear and other WMD by the threat and use of its weapons of mass destruction, whether or not there is any real evidence that the adversary state is actually pursuing such weapons.
What is left of the legal, moral, ethical, or logical basis for the United Nations itself, which was created "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained"?

What is left of the right of self-defense guaranteed by the United Nations Charter?

Since April 18, 2006, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is history.

UNSC Resolution 1540, introduced by the United States and adopted under Chapter VII:
• "Affirm[s] that proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security."
• "Encourag[es] all Member States to implement fully the disarmament treaties and agreements to which they are party."
• "Calls upon all States to promote dialogue and cooperation on nonproliferation so as to address the threat posed by proliferation of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, and their means of delivery."

With breathtaking hypocrisy, the U.S. is about to undertake sanctions and military action against Iran based on UNSC 1540, because it will certainly not get Russia and China to approve any new Chapter VII resolution against Iran.

Bolton, Rice, Bush, Joseph, Burns, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the others in the gang: whatever you do, could you at least spare us the heinously hypocritical double-talk? Please? Do you believe there is anybody left who believes your charade?

The Reality of a Threat

Imagine your next-door neighbor mows the lawn on Saturday afternoon when you are taking a nap. You ask other neighbors to join in an initiative to report this nuisance to the homeowners association, but they point out that the noise level is below the maximum allowed by city ordinance. You then take a bullhorn, go out on the street and broadcast: "I am going to gun down my next-door neighbor if he continues to mow the lawn while I am having my nap." What will happen?
1. Your next-door neighbor will be "deterred" by your threat and stop mowing the lawn. Unlikely, since he is acting within the law.
2. Your other neighbors will worry a bit but say, no, he's never going to do it, he never has gunned down anybody before. Wait, actually he did, 60 years ago, but I was told there was a good reason for it then. So let's not worry about it? No.
3. Most likely, your next-door neighbor and other neighbors will report you to the police. The police will come and ask you whether you really meant that you are going to gun down your neighbor. If you reply, "All options are on the table," you will go straight to jail.

Under California Penal Code Sect. 422, "Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison." Other states have similar provisions.

The "unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific" Bush nuclear threat is the April 18 statement together with the myriad of documents, speeches, and initiatives on nuclear policy and nuclear weapons by the administration in the last five years [1], [2], starting with these statements in the "Nuclear Posture Review" of 2001: "U.S. nuclear forces will now be used to dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends," and "Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack."

Much has been made of Ahmadinejad's "threat" that Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map." No matter how much we may dislike his words, that was not a "threat," because it did not refer to a future action by Iran. If you say "I wish my neighbor would die," you will not go to jail.

There are good reasons why criminal law considers an individual's threat to commit a crime to be itself a crime. The same reasons apply to a country's threat to commit the illegal and immoral act of using a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear country. Yet America is waiting for the threat to become reality to react to it. It will be too late then.

The Numbness of America

The president could have said: a nuclear option is not being considered. He could at least have said: we will only consider using nuclear weapons if attacked with weapons of mass destruction. He could have said, as Tony Blair did: "I don't know anybody who has even talked or contemplated the prospect of a nuclear strike on Iran. That would be absolutely absurd." He didn't. He said instead that "all options are on the table." When people speak, it is important that we listen carefully to what they say and take them seriously.

It doesn't matter if nuking Iran is one of six options being considered, as Seymour Hersh reported, or one of 100. And it doesn't matter that Hersh's report is labeled a "left-wing" rant by some and not credible by others, and it doesn't matter that Britain's Jack Straw called it "completely nuts."

All that matters is that the U.S president has officially declared that a nuclear strike on Iran is an option for America. America has been a different nation since that day.
Did you hear the outcry in the media? In Congress? College campuses? National Academy of Sciences? Nonproliferation NGOs? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I didn't. By and large, there was a collective yawn. Sure it is an option, but surely he won't exercise it.

There is something profoundly disingenuous about America's attitude toward nuclear weapons that cuts across party lines and political philosophies. It is the desire to extract benefit from keeping the option on the table, while not being willing to take responsibility and pay the price for it. Most Americans surely oppose using nuclear weapons against Iranian underground installations, and they will be outraged if it happens. Yet they will support keeping the option "on the table" to "deter" Iran. And they are not willing to consider the obvious fact that they will not be asked when the decision is made to drop nuclear bombs on Iran, and that after it happens it is too late to turn back.

On April 18, 2006, America issued a grave threat. No matter how much you want to ignore it, it is a reality. Threats have consequences.

The Future

The levees are broken, and there is no physical barrier to hold the waters from flowing, following the laws of physics, and drowning everyone and everything in their path. The president has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. He and Cheney and Rumsfeld have nothing to lose, as they will not be running in 2008. They are convinced that establishing the usability of America's nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear adversaries is in the long-term interest of America, and they will not ask your permission to launch a B61-11 against Iran. In a sense, they already asked on April 18, and you nodded by ignoring it. They are surrounded by like-minded people who were put in high places for that very reason. Those who don't agree, like Gen. Pace, will not be asked, or will resign before it happens. Bush is convinced that this will be his valuable legacy to America, and he and his cronies are willing to pay the price of a Democratic victory in the next presidential election.

Floating over the nuclear abyss, we just have to look down, and following the laws of cartoon physics, we will plunge down into the new world of unrestrained use of nuclear weapons. Can we still reach back and get hold of firm ground? Can we still repair those levees before the water starts flowing? Only if we are willing to immediately confront the facts and build a concrete barrier, urgently. Wishful thinking will not do. In our constitutional system of government, only Congress can erect the barrier: a new law that would outlaw America's use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries, or at the very least make it illegal for the president to order such use without explicit congressional authorization. We need to get that law to pass!
America's Collective Responsibility

The cards are on the table. It is no longer possible to plead ignorance. If you agree with what is about to happen, at least you are consistent. But if you don't, you are evading your responsibility. Speak out now, act within your sphere of influence, do everything you can.
Scream it from the top of your lungs; wear it on your T-shirt; use it as a bumper sticker on your car, on your Web pages, in your business stationery: AMERICA WANTS THE NUCLEAR OPTION OFF THE TABLE!

Or forever hold your peace, and face the consequences.

Just don't come later and say you didn't know and you didn't agree and you didn't support that course of action and you are sorry. Because you did know and you did agree and you did support it by your inaction. Being sorry will not make up for it.

Dingo

05-12-2006, 09:40 PM

Bolton, Rice, Bush, Joseph, Burns, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the others in the gang: whatever you do, could you at least spare us the heinously hypocritical double-talk? Please? Do you believe there is anybody left who believes your charade?

Yes many believe. Perhaps the majority of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 911 and Jesus didn't have a human daddy.

Never say "nobody believes" because if its peddled right most people will believe it. Americans believe Iran presently is the country to be afraid of and I think polls show most would support an American attack to take out their nuclear capability.

Dingo

05-12-2006, 10:11 PM

Halva, on this board, I doubt you're going to get much interest unless you can come up with a conspiracy angle. How about if we make that fruitcake leader in Iran into an asset for the CIA or the Mossad? Then we could come up with some super cool De Vinci code analysis about what's REALLY going on.

I mean sh*t these Iranians are swimming in oil. What do they need nuclear plants for? So they can get us to attack them and jack the price of oil up without them having to take the blame. That's the REAL DEAL! And of course Exxon and Halliburton are part of the plot. It's all so obvious. The Israelis, no doubt, will be offered special oil price treatment for their part.

halva

05-12-2006, 11:58 PM

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=556907&postcount=84

Dingo

05-13-2006, 05:21 AM

Bubba2

05-16-2006, 12:55 AM

There you go Halva. Give them some of that Griffin 911 conspiracy hogwash. That's what really sells around here. I already kicked the crap out of Griffin over on Carlos's thread and would have continued but the rest of the crowd all fled into the virtual woods. LOL

I DO NOT support the racist aparthied state of Israel or its' policies. It is you who continually defend the racist aparthied state of Israel.

You're a Nazi-Zionist extremist fruitcake and all the bellowing and diverting in the world isn't going to change that.

Dingo

05-16-2006, 04:00 AM

It's a perfect description of me. I support the racist aparthied tendencies in the state of Israel and just wish they would do more of it. It is you who continually criticize the extreme Zionist tendencies and occupation policies of Israel. I do nothing but promote them.

I agree. You're a Nazi-Zionist extremist fruitcake and all your bellowing and bullshitting just confirms that.

You and the extreme expansionist Zionists are locked in a tight embrace. You are like oxygen to each other. You support the most fascist tendencies in Israel. It's obvious by your rhetoric.

I sympathize with the fact that you are an unlettered idiot and have to plagiarize my lines in your posts.

jayhawk

05-16-2006, 05:42 PM

Another War for Israel. The amen corner howls for war with Iran.

… "The U.S. presence in Iraq is hurting the worldwide war on terrorism and benefits only Iran and al-Qaeda, U.S. Rep. John Murtha said on Sunday. 'The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaeda,' Murtha said on CBS's Face the Nation political talk show. 'And I talked to a top-level commander the other day and he said China wants us there also. Why? Because we're depleting our resources … our troop resources and our fiscal resources.'"

Not to worry: Iran, it seems, is next on our hit list, and this is largely at the behest of the one beneficiary of the Iraq war Murtha fails to mention: Israel. The Israelis have been loudly howling for months about the prospect of a nuclear Iran: their amen corner in the U.S. has gone into overdrive, pushing for sanctions and drawing a dire picture of nuke-wielding "mad mullahs." …..

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8663

### The ongoing AIPAC conference stresses the urgency to rein in Iran ####

Thought you might like this quote from the God Father of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol

And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest:

“[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”

ttp://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

halva

05-19-2006, 05:45 AM

The Israeli Committee
For a Middle East Free from Atomic, Biological
& Chemical Weapons
P.O Box 16202 Tel Aviv 61161 Israel Tel/Fax +972-(0)3-5222869
Email: spiro@bezeqint.net

May 18, 2006

To: The Honorable Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations

Re: The Iranian threat to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Your Excellency ,

Iran's nuclear projects acquire an alarming significance with Iran's recent threat to withdraw its acceptance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The Middle-East is a volatile region. In the last fifty years the Middle-East had more wars than any other region in the world. If governments in this region acquire nuclear weapons the probability of a nuclear holocaust in the M-E rises sharply

A nuclear holocaust in the Middle-East will affect the entire world

Efforts to stop Iran's nuclear projects lack credibility as long as they allow other governments in this region to have such weapons.

As is well known in 1987 an Israeli court sentenced the Israeli citizen Mordechai Vanunu to 18 years imprisonment for informing the "Sunday Times" about Israel's nuclear weapons industry.

The Israeli court declared Vanunu guilty of Treason, not of Libel.

This amounts to an official admission that Israel has nuclear weapons.

So far Iran denies that it intends to build nuclear weapons and has signed the NPT.

All Israeli governments have refused to sign the NPT.

Mr. Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy Prime Minister, has recently replied to Iranian threats against Israel by declaring that "Iran too can be destroyed".

We suggest that you act so that both Israel - and Iran – obey the NPT and put all their nuclear plants under International control.

Steps taken against Iran's nuclear projects that are not applied also to Israel's nuclear projects lack credibility and are bound to appear as biased and as hypocrisy.

We call upon you to declare that the UN supports a Nuclear-Free Middle-East
and will act to make all governments in this region sign the NPT.

Only pressure on ALL governments in this region can prevent a nuclear holocaust.

Yours sincerely, awaiting your reply,

Gideon Spiro , Committee coordinator

On behalf of the following members of the Committee: Akiva Orr, Yael Lotan, Dr. Yehuda Atai, Ehud Ein-Gil, Alon Marcus, Giyora Neumann.

Copies: "Sunday Times", "New-York Times", "Washington Post", "Le Monde "

dewey189

05-19-2006, 06:20 AM

Efforts to stop Iran's nuclear projects lack credibility as long as they allow other governments in this region to have such weapons.

Steps taken against Iran's nuclear projects that are not applied also to Israel's nuclear projects lack credibility and are bound to appear as biased and as hypocrisy.

We call upon you to declare that the UN supports a Nuclear-Free Middle-East and will act to make all governments in this region sign the NPT.

Only pressure on ALL governments in this region can prevent a nuclear holocaust. All good points, imo.

Dingo

05-19-2006, 06:39 AM

All good points, imo.
In principle I agree too dewey but ultimately nuclear weapons are not regional in nature. There has to be a world wide standard. And that includes us.

halva

05-19-2006, 07:23 AM

Who are "us", Israel or the United States?

In any case, insistence on nuclear disarmament of the United States as a precondition for a nuclear-free Middle East is nothing more than a hypocritical way of trying to prevent the latter. There are many Israelis who would not consent to nuclear disarmament of Israel if they thought that they would be losing the US "umbrella" also. It is bullshit of course, but politics is largely made up of bullshit.

No other state should use US nuclear weapons as an excuse for not getting rid of its own. It is other countries' nuclear arsenals that are the mainstay of US justification for keeping its own nuclear arsenal. A nuclear-free Middle East is a conceivably feasible demand. Universal nuclear disarmament at this point in time is not.

Who prevented Yeltsin from scrapping the Russian nuclear arsenal? The United States and the Europeans!!

Who is preventing Israel from getting rid of its nuclear arsenal? Confusedly arrogant Jewish-Americans like Dingo lacking consciousness of national self-interest because they don't know which of the two states they are loyal to. And their American Israeli counterparts.

The world has to be freed from this intolerably muddled mentality and the monsters it has spawned. Israelis and Americans must both revolt against it.

Dingo

05-20-2006, 12:39 AM

Pastryman, the anti-Semite, gets pissed off and starts lying out of his ass. I know you folks think those who don't agree with you are Zionist Jews. Just aint so in my case. You can take it up with my Scotch-Irish ancestors. Sorry you'll have to come up with another line pissant.

Pastryman. Confusedly arrogant Jewish-Americans like Dingo lacking consciousness of national self-interest because they don't know which of the two states they are loyal to.

I have been a consistent critic of Israel, Zionism and the Israeli lobby and consider their nuclear program, particularly due to their refusal to allow international inspections, a threat to peace. I believe we ought to cut them off financially, probably in a progressive fashion at this point to wean them. While as I can understand the reasons for Zionism, given the predominance of anti-Semitism, I generally think of it as a negative chauvinistic concept that will eventually disappear into the ashes of history. In some form or another I've already been over this matter with you. That's why I know you're a liar. The Zionist idea unfortunately rests ultimately on the notion of collective Jewry being able to secure their own survival. If you wish to change that you are better off pushing for a nonZionist unitary state. No Zionist state is going to give up their nuclear weapons.

Who are "us", Israel or the United States?

I don't live in Israel idiot!

halva

05-21-2006, 09:29 AM

The current crisis with Iran is the best yet opportunity for moving in the direction of the non-Zionist state you claim to wish to see, mobilising all forces in Israel, Jewish or otherwise, who wish to avert the threat to the security of ANY Israeli state, Zionist or otherwise, that would be complicit in an attack, nuclear or non-nuclear, against Iran, on the grounds evoked.

As usual you make no attempt to address the specific arguments I raise that universal nuclear disarmament as a precondition for establishing a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East is mischievous, hypocritical and indefensible. Instead you launch your customary disgusting anti-Semitic jibe against my expression of solidarity with a group Jewish Israeli anti-war intellectuals.

And I INSIST that you don't know who WE or US are. You are blocked and arteriosclerotic in your thinking.

Dingo

05-21-2006, 12:49 PM

The current crisis with Iran is the best yet opportunity for moving in the direction of the non-Zionist state you claim to wish to see
You finally made some progress. First I've seen. A nonZionist Israel is a precondition for a nuclear stand down.

As usual you make no attempt to address the specific arguments I raise that universal nuclear disarmament as a precondition for establishing a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East is mischievous, hypocritical and indefensible.
Let's see Pakistan, India and Israel are going to stand down but not China, the US and the Russians. Boy that sure makes sense! Try selling ice to Eskimos.

Instead you launch your customary disgusting anti-Semitic jibe against my expression of solidarity with a group Jewish Israeli anti-war intellectuals. Give me a break. You've associated yourself with blatantly anti-Semitic comments. I've always identified with the Israeli anti-war faction and have posted steadily to that effect since 2001.

And I INSIST that you don't know who WE or US are. You are blocked and arteriosclerotic in your thinking.
Well I think you're a turtle who lives in his shell and won't come out because of persistent agoraphobia - so there! LOL

dewey189

05-21-2006, 01:02 PM

In principle I agree too dewey but ultimately nuclear weapons are not regional in nature. There has to be a world wide standard. And that includes us.I agree. We have no legitimate authority to demand that other nations can't have what we already have.

halva

05-21-2006, 04:53 PM

I agree. We have no legitimate authority to demand that other nations can't have what we already have.

If you really believe this, go ahead. But there is no reason why non-Americans should be inhibited by your feelings about what Americans have a right to demand or not demand. Other countries should go ahead and get rid of their nuclear weapons anyway irrespective of what Americans do or don't do.

Dingo

05-21-2006, 06:40 PM

If you really believe this, go ahead. But there is no reason why non-Americans should be inhibited by your feelings about what Americans have a right to demand or not demand. Other countries should go ahead and get rid of their nuclear weapons anyway irrespective of what Americans do or don't do.
Right on Pastryman! China are you listening? Halva's talking to you!

dewey189

05-21-2006, 07:17 PM

If you really believe this, go ahead. But there is no reason why non-Americans should be inhibited by your feelings about what Americans have a right to demand or not demand. Other countries should go ahead and get rid of their nuclear weapons anyway irrespective of what Americans do or don't do.Why would any country take the risk of disarming while the US plays war games with its naughty and nice list?

Dingo

05-21-2006, 08:33 PM

halva

05-21-2006, 10:28 PM

Why would any country take the risk of disarming while the US plays war games with its naughty and nice list?

Because nuclear weapons possession by any but the most powerful nuclear-armed state merely serves to undermine the national defense of the weaker state. If the most powerful nuclear-armed state decides to apply a counter-force strategy against the weaker nuclear-armed state, targeting its nuclear installations and making it clear that any retaliation to a "counter-force" strike against the nuclear installations will be followed by a second-strike ICBM attack on the country's cities, the possession of nuclear weapons by the weaker state in effect plays a "trigger" function, undermining that country's security and rendering it vulnerable in ways that it was not vulnerable before it acquired nuclear weapons.

Why does the Communist Soviet Union no longer exist while Communist Cuba still exists? Khruschchev tried to render Cuba vulnerable in the same way that the Soviet Union was vulnerable, by installing nuclear weapons there. Kennedy upset his game by saying that the US response would not be to invade Cuba (as Khruschev wanted him to do), but to inflict nuclear retaliation against the Soviet Union. Khruschev then went to pieces, foreshadowing the way that his country thirty years later would similarly go to pieces. Cuba, freed from nuclear weapons, survived.

It was because of considerations of this kind that the Swedish military forced the pro-nuclear- weapons politicians in Sweden headed by Olaf Palme to fall in with their decision (taken on national security grounds) to implement unilateral nuclear disarmament of Sweden. Palme later became a nuclear disarmament campaigner but his unwillingness to publicly acknowledge the realities of how unilateral nuclear disarmament had come about in Sweden (it affected his own anti-nuclear image) meant that the wrong message was conveyed - i.e. that Swedish unilateral nuclear disarmament had been brought about by Swedish Social-Democrats on moral humanitarian grounds rather than by probably conservative Swedish military professionals on national security grounds. This association with unrealistic humanitarianism has always plagued the anti-nuclear movement, making it ineffective as a means of promoting nuclear disarmament and finally even as a means of winning votes (which was always its primary attraction for Social-Democratic parliamentary politicians).

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAL20060125&articleId=1806

The end result of all this is that the enforcement of nuclear non-proliferation through international treaty has been replaced by phony gestures at imposing non-proliferation (in effect selective encouragement of proliferation by certain "friendly" states ) by means of the open threat of nuclear attack against the nuclear installations of offending states (i.e. by what has in fact always been the policy, obscured by the hypocritical rhetoric of international treaties).

The Pershing-Cruise (Euromissiles) "limited nuclear war" strategy that brought down the Soviet Union at the end of the 80s was no different to what is currently being threatened against Iran.

No doubt it will be attempted again against China, using India as a proxy rather than Germany.

Why did the United States make sure (via Klaus Fuchs and the other "spies" e.g. Ted Hall) that the Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons as soon as possible? It takes two to tango. No nuclear-arms race without at least two players. No Cold War "victory" without first building up an enemy important enough for its defeat to appear politically significant.

halva

05-21-2006, 10:46 PM

Notice something wrong with this speech? Certain people aren't being invited to the inspection-disarmament party so the legitimate concern for nuclear proliferation is turned into windy rhetoric. Either all countries are going to be brought under the nuclear inspections and ultimate disarmament umbrella or the show is probably over and we will simply join the other 99% of the species that have become extinct.

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/60254.htm

There is no need to care at all about what the United States does. Nuclear disarmament can be pursued unilaterally or bilaterally by other states (Israel-Iran, Europe-Russia, Russia-China, India-Pakistan). The US is in any case pursuing Star Wars programmes supposedly to render other countries' nuclear missiles ineffective. Save them the bother. Get rid of the nuclear weapons anyway.

Ask the Chinese government about whether they need "defenders" like Dingo. The Chinese are not like the Soviets used to be, half-hoping that there is something to be expected from "anti-nuclear" movements politically controlled by them.

halva

05-22-2006, 12:47 AM

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=559390&postcount=13

This appeal has now also been translated into Greek by a Cypriot colleague of Aki Orr. Who cares if Dingo doesn't support it? He doesn't live in Israel anyway. The appeal can be distributed among Europeans, and the US can go to hell.

Dingo

05-22-2006, 02:34 AM

Pastryman. Nuclear weapons possession by any but the most powerful nuclear-armed state merely serves to undermine the national defense of the weaker state.

Know any nuclear armed state that has suffered attack from another state? Who was more a threat to the US, Iraq or N. Korea? Guess which one got attacked. Guess who had the nuclear weapon. What does two plus two equal?

Why does the Communist Soviet Union no longer exist while Communist Cuba still exists? Khrushchev tried to render Cuba vulnerable in the same way that the Soviet Union was vulnerable, by installing nuclear weapons there. Kennedy upset his game by saying that the US response would not be to invade Cuba (as Khrushchev wanted him to do), but to inflict nuclear retaliation against the Soviet Union. Khruschev then went to pieces, foreshadowing the way that his country thirty years later would similarly go to pieces. Cuba, freed from nuclear weapons, survived.

What a bunch of bull crap! Khruschev "wanted him" to invade Cuba? That has no evidence or logic to back it up. What do you think they had the missiles there for? The fact is Kennedy looked down the barrel of the nuclear gun from Cuba and agreed to not invade Cuba in the future. He did disingenuously "allow" Cuban exiles to engage in low level sabotage but no more "Bay of Pigs." Khrushchev basically got what he wanted. That and getting American missiles aimed at Russia removed from Turkey. An important peace initiative came out of that period. The Soviets collapsed for all sorts of reasons including the arms race in general, Afghanistan, Chernobyl didn't help and a generally unpopular, corrupt and over extended government. The Cuba missile crisis was a gamble that paid off for them and increased the chances of Cuba's survival.

Swedish military forced the pro-nuclear- weapons politicians in Sweden headed by Olaf Palme to fall in with their decision (taken on national security grounds) to implement unilateral nuclear disarmament of Sweden.
Why would Sweden want nuclear weapons? They have no enemies. Just a waste of resources for a small country. If Norway coveted Sweden and started to build nuclear weapons capability now what do you think Sweden would do? Think India and Pakistan, who by the way are now having some pretty productive peace talks I understand. Also Sweden is part of Europe and as such England and France kind of cover their ass.

Why did the United States make sure (via Klaus Fuchs and the other "spies" e.g. Ted Hall) that the Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons as soon as possible? It takes two to tango. No nuclear-arms race without at least two players. No Cold War "victory" without first building up an enemy important enough for its defeat to appear politically significant.

I've said it once and I'll say it again halva, you're a conspiracy nut. Your Griffin post already confirmed that. Now you're peddling this garbage. During the 2nd World War the Soviets enjoyed a lot of sympathy among intellectuals who were strongly anti-fascist. That's why they were able to crack the Manhattan Project unlike the Japanese and Germans who had their own agents trying to do the same thing. No government conspiracy is required and most assuredly Ted Hall and co. would laugh in your face. Infiltration by the Soviets occurred at many levels of gov. Hell they were our allies against the axis and some government workers enthusiastically wanted to "help".

There is no need to care at all about what the United States does. Nuclear disarmament can be pursued unilaterally or bilaterally by other states (Israel-Iran, Europe-Russia, Russia-China, India-Pakistan).
Yeah, and pigs can fly. No one is going to give the US hegemony in nuclear weapons or even the opportunity to blackmail them if there is a history of conflict with this country. The only time we had a monopoly we used nukes just as soon as we possibly could. People don't forget stuff like that. Also Bush with his "all options are on the table" and "first strike" starwars policies hasn't been much help.

Pastryman I assume you are well meaning but you have been taking some kind of mental holliday. Your analysis is atrocious across the board. As for me being a "defender" of the Chinese, give me a break! Once again you show that your reading skills are deficient or maybe like I suggested before, lying just comes naturally.

dewey189

05-22-2006, 04:03 AM

Know any nuclear armed state that has suffered attack from another state? Who was more a threat to the US, Iraq or N. Korea? Guess which one got attacked. Guess who had the nuclear weapon. Exactly.

halva

05-22-2006, 07:15 AM

As usual all that Dingo has to offer is reiteration of media-underwritten popular fallacies interspersed by name-calling (anti-Semite, conspiracy theorist, etc. etc.)

Know any nuclear armed state that has suffered attack from another state?

Yes, I do.. It was called the Soviet Union. It possessed the world's second largest nuclear arsenal. It collapsed in 1991. Much of its former territory is now occupied by US troops.

After the disintegration of this state, its nuclear arsenal was spread over what had become four independent republics: Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine. There was much trumpeting in the media of how privileged Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine had become, since they were now independent "nuclear powers". But it was not the policy of the victors that these countries should remain "nuclear powers". The nuclear weapons were removed from their territory or dismantled.

President Boris Yeltsin of the remaining "nuclear power", Russia, wanted to have the same right to dispose of his country's nuclear weapons as the other "independent nuclear weapons states", Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. But the victors didn't want this to happen, and prevented it from happening, despite vigorous lobbying by the aforesaid Russian President at a meeting of the victorious powers in Russia towards the end of 1991 where the fate of the nuclear arsenal of the defeated nuclear power USSR was to be decided not by Russians or any other of the former Soviet peoples but by the victorious "Western" powers.

Of course Russia did want to remain a full member of the UN Security Council, a privilege that is vouchsafed only to "nuclear powers". This was undoubtedly a carrot used to persuade Yeltsin that Russia should do its duty in upholding prevailing international relations of domination and accompanying ideologies by keeping "its" nuclear arsenal. The Russian nuclear bogy was too convenient a fixture to be frivolously disposed with.

It was moreover the policy of the conquerors that only the Ukraine and the Central Asian and oil-bearing - and so strategically important - parts of the former Soviet Union should be subject to direct military occupation.

Dingo continues his ideological regurgitations:

Who was more a threat to the US, Iraq or N. Korea? Guess which one got attacked. Guess who had the nuclear weapon. What does two plus two equal?

Note that this individual is inciting foreign states to arm themselves with nuclear weapons "against the United States".

What a bunch of bull crap! Khruschev "wanted him" to invade Cuba? That has no evidence or logic to back it up.

The Cuban dissident Servando Gonzales in his
"Nuclear Deception" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971139156/qid=1148301943/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8873282-0586502?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) (Second Edition, 2003) shows convincingly both that Khruschev had every good reason to want to get rid of Castro and that he attempted to do so in the way that I have indicated.

What do you think they had the missiles there for? The fact is Kennedy looked down the barrel of the nuclear gun from Cuba and agreed to not invade Cuba in the future. He did disingenuously "allow" Cuban exiles to engage in low level sabotage but no more "Bay of Pigs." Khrushchev basically got what he wanted. That and getting American missiles aimed at Russia removed from Turkey. An important peace initiative came out of that period. The Soviets collapsed for all sorts of reasons including the arms race in general, Afghanistan, Chernobyl didn't help and a generally unpopular, corrupt and over extended government. The Cuba missile crisis was a gamble that paid off for them and increased the chances of Cuba's survival.

Dingo you quite obviously have never asked yourself the most elementary questions about the strangely contradictory elements in the media cover story of the Cuban missile crisis.

Why would Sweden want nuclear weapons? They have no enemies. Just a waste of resources for a small country.

Sweden very nearly did build a nuclear arsenal in the 50s. The military and the Social Democratic women's organizations (primarily the former) stopped it.

If Norway coveted Sweden and started to build nuclear weapons capability now what do you think Sweden would do? Think India and Pakistan, who by the way are now having some pretty productive peace talks I understand. Also Sweden is part of Europe and as such England and France kind of cover their ass.

You don't know what you're talking about. The French and British nuclear arsenals have not been "upgraded" into a European "nuclear deterrent" despite the best efforts of David Owen (and many others). They "protect" the French and British national territory respectively, and nothing else (to conduct the discussion in your [and their] bullshit terms).

I've said it once and I'll say it again halva.......

I'm quite sure that you will.....

.... most assuredly Ted Hall and co. would laugh in your face.

Ted Hall, a Jew like you, is/was a serious and in many ways remarkable person. He must have realized in the end how hugely he had been duped, but self-respect seems to have prevented him from carrying out more than modified self-criticism. He signed in 1997, at the age of 71, a statement which contained, among much else, the following:

"It has even been alleged that I 'changed the course of history'. Maybe the 'course of history', if unchanged, would have led to atomic war in the past fifty years - for example the bomb might have been dropped on China in 1949 or the early fifties. Well, if I helped to prevent that, I accept the charge. But such talk is purely hypothetical." .......

"In 1944 I was nineteen years old - immature, inexperienced and far too sure of myself. I recognize that I could easily have been wrong in my judgement of what was necessary, and that I was indeed mistaken about some things, in particular my view of the Soviet state....."

Ted Hall would not laugh, or have laughed, in my face. He would not even have laughed in your face, though your ignorance in these matters is equalled only by your extreme self-confidence.

dewey189

05-22-2006, 07:39 AM

Note that this individual is inciting foreign states to arm themselves with nuclear weapons "against the United States".Bullshit. That individual simply stated the obvious.

halva

05-22-2006, 11:53 AM

Bullshit. That individual simply stated the obvious.

(Quoted by halva)
Efforts to stop Iran's nuclear projects lack credibility as long as they allow other governments in this region to have such weapons.

Steps taken against Iran's nuclear projects that are not applied also to Israel's nuclear projects lack credibility and are bound to appear as biased and as hypocrisy.

We call upon you to declare that the UN supports a Nuclear-Free Middle-East and will act to make all governments in this region sign the NPT.

Only pressure on ALL governments in this region can prevent a nuclear holocaust.

All good points, imo.

In principle I agree too dewey but ultimately nuclear weapons are not regional in nature. There has to be a world wide standard. And that includes us.

So you agree with me programmatically and Dingo philosophically. Is program going to win, or philosophy?

dewey189

05-22-2006, 01:04 PM

So you agree with me programmatically and Dingo philosophically. Is program going to win, or philosophy?Allow me to change your post, as follows:
Efforts to stop Iran's nuclear projects lack credibility as long as they allow other governments in this region to have such weapons.Efforts to stop Iran's nuclear projects lack credibility as long as they allow other governments to have such weapons.Steps taken against Iran's nuclear projects that are not applied also to Israel's nuclear projects lack credibility and are bound to appear as biased and as hypocrisy.Steps taken against Iran's nuclear projects that are not applied also to the nuclear projects of other nations lack credibility and are bound to appear as biased and as hypocrisyWe call upon you to declare that the UN supports a Nuclear-Free Middle-East and will act to make all governments in this region sign the NPT.We call upon you to declare that the UN supports a Nuclear-Free world and will act to make all governments sign the NPT.Only pressure on ALL governments in this region can prevent a nuclear holocaust.Only pressure on ALL governments can prevent a nuclear holocaust.

Program or philosophy? You decide.

halva

05-22-2006, 03:01 PM

What I decide is that I don't have any intention of waiting around until by some miracle the United Nations acquires the power to issue orders to the United States.

Dingo

05-22-2006, 04:06 PM

As usual all that Dingo has to offer is reiteration of media-underwritten popular fallacies interspersed by name-calling (anti-Semite, conspiracy theorist, etc. etc.)
I'm not sure what those "media-underwritten popular fallacies" are. I suspect it's just one of those diversions folks like you trot out because you can't hold up your end of the argument. As for the so called "name-calling", if the shoe fits where it. It fits.

Wow, this halva fellow has no shame. This is what I asked.
Know any nuclear armed state that has suffered attack from another state?

Here is his reply.
Yes, I do.. It was called the Soviet Union. It possessed the world's second largest nuclear arsenal. It collapsed in 1991. Much of its former territory is now occupied by US troops.
The US attacked, invaded and occupied? Orwell would love you.

After the disintegration of this state, its nuclear arsenal was spread over what had become four independent republics: Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine. There was much trumpeting in the media of how privileged Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine had become, since they were now independent "nuclear powers". But it was not the policy of the victors that these countries should remain "nuclear powers". The nuclear weapons were removed from their territory or dismantled.
I see we ordered and they complied. It had nothing to do with the fact that they were not natural targets for anybody and the expense was just too much to maintain and that we were ready to help pay for the decommisioning of their nuclear program. Nah, nothing like that.

President Boris Yeltsin of the remaining "nuclear power", Russia, wanted to have the same right to dispose of his country's nuclear weapons as the other "independent nuclear weapons states", Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. But the victors didn't want this to happen, and prevented it from happening, despite vigorous lobbying by the aforesaid Russian President at a meeting of the victorious powers in Russia towards the end of 1991 where the fate of the nuclear arsenal of the defeated nuclear power USSR was to be decided not by Russians or any other of the former Soviet peoples but by the victorious "Western" powers.

Of course Russia did want to remain a full member of the UN Security Council, a privilege that is vouchsafed only to "nuclear powers". This was undoubtedly a carrot used to persuade Yeltsin that Russia should do its duty in upholding prevailing international relations of domination and accompanying ideologies by keeping "its" nuclear arsenal. The Russian nuclear bogy was too convenient a fixture to be frivolously disposed with.

Let's see if I understand you right Pastryman. Yeltsin wanted to get rid of his nuclear program but the "Western" powers wouldn't let him. LOL LOL. This is a put on right? Did somebody put you up to this? Maybe they kicked you off all the European boards you posted at so you looked around for the most nutcase conspiracy board around, chemtrails and all. Well you came to the right place. Nice to have you around to add to the humor hour. LOL

Note that this individual is inciting foreign states to arm themselves with nuclear weapons "against the United States"
As dewey has nicely stated you're full of bullshit. I was laying out the reality, a zone you seem unfamiliar with.

Dingo you quite obviously have never asked yourself the most elementary questions about the strangely contradictory elements in the media cover story of the Cuban missile crisis.
Let's see Mr. Conspiracy Man, they had nuclear missiles aimed at us set up to go off if we invaded Cuba but they really wanted us to invade. Boy, that sure makes sense!

You don't know what you're talking about. The French and British nuclear arsenals have not been "upgraded" into a European "nuclear deterrent" despite the best efforts of David Owen (and many others). They "protect" the French and British national territory respectively, and nothing else (to conduct the discussion in your [and their] bullshit terms).
Now how does a nuclear deterent get upgraded into being a European nuclear deterent? By declaring it or implicitly indicating it. THINK silly boy. All I'm saying is really quite obvious. An attack on Sweden would presumably only come as part of an attack on Europe in general. For that they already had nuclear cover.

Ted Hall, a Jew like you
Since the rest of your quote has no relevance to anything in the discussion I will simply focus on why it is so obvious you are an anti-Semite. I have already told you I'm not Jewish but apparently in your mind only a dirty Jew could hold the opinions I have. And suppose I was Jewish? What would that prove? Many of the strongest arguments against Israeli occupation policy and Zionism come from Jews. You yourself like to quote Israel Shamir.

The truth is Pastryman you are a liar and an anti-Semite and a conspiracy nutcase and frankly your arguments on a nuclear stand down although seemingly well intended appear to be poorly thought through and dishonestly constructed.

Have a nice day.

whitemajikman

05-22-2006, 06:00 PM

Since the rest of your quote has no relevance to anything in the discussion I will simply focus on why it is so obvious you are an anti-Semite. I have already told you I'm not Jewish but apparently in your mind only a dirty Jew could hold the opinions I have. And suppose I was Jewish? What would that prove? Many of the strongest arguments against Israeli occupation policy and Zionism come from Jews. You yourself like to quote Israel Shamir.

Dingo, Your Anti-semitism rant is getting Old.........

You,Yourself Are NOT Balanced in your own views of this Subject..............

By The Way How Is Conneticut in the Spring?

WMM

dewey189

05-22-2006, 06:59 PM

What I decide is that I don't have any intention of waiting around until by some miracle the United Nations acquires the power to issue orders to the United States.The US should be leading on this issue, not waiting for the UN to issue edicts.

Dingo

05-22-2006, 07:59 PM

Dingo, Your Anti-semitism rant is getting Old.........

You,Yourself Are NOT Balanced in your own views of this Subject..............

By The Way How Is Conneticut in the Spring?

WMM
Ask a Conneticutan. I'm from California and it's overcast at the moment.

I know Whiteman that you think you are saving the Jews from their ugly ways but basically your standard rant comes right out of the stormfront play book. When I first posted on this forum no one was a bigger critic of the Israeli occupation and Zionism than myself. The hard line Israeli supporters(Only one who was Jewish) called ME an anti-Semite so I know how it can be used opportunistically. Then Berty Boy showed up with his Jew-hate chip on his shoulder and the whole stormfront crowd flocked in of which I consider you a member. Funny, I can never recall laying that charge on anybody on any other forum, only here. Maybe you folks ought to do a little mirror checking and ask why?

halva

05-22-2006, 09:00 PM

The US should be leading on this issue, not waiting for the UN to issue edicts.

If the US can lead, let it. But there is no reason why people anywhere else should expect, hope for or depend on any such thing happening.

Dingo

05-22-2006, 09:14 PM

If the US can lead, let it. But there is no reason why people anywhere else should expect, hope for or depend on any such thing happening.
Gandhi led. He didn't expect the British empire to make nice. But he knew the British would have to be the key player in the solution of Indian independence.

whitemajikman

05-22-2006, 09:28 PM

I know Whiteman that you think you are saving the Jews from their ugly ways but basically your standard rant comes right out of the stormfront play book.

My Rant Is That Of Jews Who Don't Support Zionist Israel Or Fall For Their Propaganda.........

And I Must Ask You How Would You Know What Comes Out Of Stormfront Dingus?

Are You An Active Participant Or Something.....?

My Beef With You Is That You Like to Try And Pigeon-hole those you don't agree with as Anti-semites......and slander them at every turn.

When You Do This ........all you are doing is promoting the Zionist Party Line which you say you are against.......

How many times do you think you can keep doing this without YOUR ethics being questioned?

When I first posted on this forum no one was a bigger critic of the Israeli occupation and Zionism than myself. The hard line Israeli supporters(Only one who was Jewish) called ME an anti-Semite so I know how it can be used opportunistically. Then Berty Boy showed up with his Jew-hate chip on his shoulder and the whole stormfront crowd flocked in of which I consider you a member.

Your So Transparent it's fucken hilarious........

You,Yourself Are An Oppertunist that uses the accusation of "anti-semitism" as your own personal way of deriding those who do not agree with Israel.........It's Called Slander FUCKFACE.......and your a master at using it.

Your Such A Fucken Lunatic That You Have Not Considered that I am Jewish By Blood...........And Your A Fucken Goyim whom knows nothing of what being a Jew is all about.......but yet you sit here day in and day out thinking that you know the answers to all of these complex questions pertaining to Jewry..........When The Reality Is Your Nothing More Than A Wanna-Be Jew who can never be a TRUE Jew..........LIVE WITH IT ASSHOLE.

And Before You Start accusing Jews Of Being Anti-semites You Might want To Grab A Fucken Brain ,and realize that your GAME IS UP............Fuckhead..........

Funny, I can never recall laying that charge on anybody on any other forum, only here. Maybe you folks ought to do a little mirror checking and ask why?

Maybe You Should Realize That Your Charges Are Based upon Your Own Fucked Up Willingness to see Anti-semites hiding behind every tree..........

Not Once Have You Ever Had A Rational Conversation with me That Hasn't Lead to You Calling Me A Jew..........An Anti-semite.

Thats How Fucken Out Of Touch With Reality You Truly Are.........

Your Either So Sucked In To The Zionist Propaganda.........Or Your A Fucken Schill.........

Dingus..........

WMM

Dingo

05-22-2006, 09:41 PM

Thanks Whiteman. You made my point beautifully.

whitemajikman

05-22-2006, 09:54 PM

You made my point beautifully.

Dingo,You Have No Point ...........

Just My Anger At Your Bigoted Stupidity.......

WMM

halva

05-22-2006, 09:56 PM

It's true that he has no point.

It's about time to take a bit of a rest from all this.

Dingo

05-22-2006, 10:32 PM

Ah, I just engineered the marriage between Pastryman and Protocolsman. I predict a long close relationship in a world filled with terrible conspiracies and nasty conniving Jews, preferably combined. There's a Zionist ie Jewish world just waiting to be exposed and conquered boys. Go to it and don't fire until you see the green of their little greedy pig eyes.

halva

05-22-2006, 11:31 PM

Ignore-list this idiot. Bye-bye Dingo.

halva

05-22-2006, 11:34 PM

I admit to being prejudiced against idiots.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idiot

Dingo

05-23-2006, 03:44 AM

Well one lying anti-Semitic conspiracy nutcase couldn't take the heat. And such a pretentious fellow too. Yeah, I'd recommend 'ignore' to protect your sorry ass from the terrible Dingo. With little effort I was able to expose that little Greek's sometimes perfidious and often clueless fun and games. All I had to do was tell the truth. Still at some level I think halva meant well. All folks have a good side. RIP my poor deluded Greek seeker of God knows what.

So Whiteman, are you going to follow your buddies' lead and play scared turtle? Never, never, never have I put anyone on 'ignore'. Even the worst have something to reveal to those whose high calling is to study the grand range of humanity. In fact the magnificent misfits are the key to understanding the outer borders of insanity. As the Jane Goodall of the board ALL you higher and less than higher apes are included in my field of view. And I take notes! Maybe I'll write you up.

dewey189

05-23-2006, 05:10 AM

If the US can lead, let it. But there is no reason why people anywhere else should expect, hope for or depend on any such thing happening.Agreed, but that does not mean they shouldn't be making demands that the US participate. We need to play fairly or shut the hell up.

halva

05-23-2006, 06:18 AM

Agreed, but that does not mean they shouldn't be making demands that the US participate. We need to play fairly or shut the hell up.

The only US audience I think it is worth talking to is the audience that is no longer petitioning your government. Other countries should talk to each other also rather than to your government.
It is ridiculous for nuclear disarmament to be hostage to US policies.

"Nuclear deterrence" is BULLSHIT. Anyone who wants his government to have nuclear weapons, whatever threats it is facing, has not understood anything of the history of this planet over the last sixty years.

halva

05-23-2006, 06:33 AM

Dear Peace Colleagues,

Would you like your mayor to campaign for nuclear disarmament with the Mayor of Hiroshima?

As planned, the invitation to participate in the International Mayoral Delegation has gone out to members of Mayors for Peace in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Please see the attached letter from Mayor Akiba of Hiroshima. The cover message of the e-mail can be found below. The letter refers to the Good Faith Challenge, which in turn refers to the Cities Are Not Targets project. These two documents are attached, but you received the Delegation's itinerary in the previous email, so it is not attached.

We need your assistance with this recruitment effort. If you have not made preparations to contact City Hall, please review the advice in the previous “ALERT” email. Our office in Ieper, Belgium, is now set up to help you to help us. Our contact information is given below. The telephone number may not have been activated yet, in that case you can call this alternative number – +32 (57) 239 214 – and ask for Aaron or Boris.

We look forward to working with you!

Regards, Aaron and Boris

Aaron Tovish
International Manager
2020 Vision Campaign
Mayors for Peace
+32 57 38 89 57 (Int'l Secretariat)
+41 22 340 3853 (Geneva)
+1 917 345 1960 (Mobile)
Skype: tovron

TITLE OF E-MAIL TO MAYORS: Invitation from Mayor of Hiroshima to join Int'l Delegation to Europe
DATE: Monday, 22 May 2006

TEXT OF E-MAIL TO MAYORS:

Dear Mayor [or Aide to Mayor],

Please find attached a letter from the President of Mayors for Peace, Tadatoshi Akiba, Mayor of Hiroshima, Japan.

Please be so kind as to confirm by return email your receipt of this message. We would be most pleased to provide any additional information you may require.

Please note that this is an URGENT matter as only five weeks remain before the International Delegation begins its work.

Please also note that international participation in the Delegation even in only one of the three destinations is most welcome. Unfortunately we are not in a position to provide financial assistance with travel and accommodation; although we can assist with placing reservations.

Sincerely,

Aaron Tovish
International Manager
2020 Vision Campaign
Mayors for Peace
+32 57 38 89 57
+1 917 345 1960 (Mobile)
Skype: tovron

Boris Toucas
Assistant
International Secretariat of the 2020 Vision Campaign
+32 57 38 89 57

Dingo

05-23-2006, 07:40 AM

"Nuclear deterrence" is BULLSHIT. Anyone who wants his government to have nuclear weapons, whatever threats it is facing, has not understood anything of the history of this planet over the last sixty years.
Still a silly boy. Nuclear deterence either directly or indirectly under the form of an umbrella shield has virtually prevented a major war against all those protected. However it is an interim measure and ultimately we are all trapped in a game of Russian Roulette. As the years go by either we all get rid of our nuclear weapons or something will spark their use. We are playing against time.

Regards, Aaron and Boris

Aaron Tovish
International Manager
2020 Vision Campaign
Mayors for Peace

Pssssst. Don't tell halva international means EVERYBODY, even the US. Maybe there's a secret side to the boy that gets it. We'll see.

dewey189

05-23-2006, 08:21 AM

The only US audience I think it is worth talking to is the audience that is no longer petitioning your government. Other countries should talk to each other also rather than to your government. It is ridiculous for nuclear disarmament to be hostage to US policies."Nuclear deterrence" is BULLSHIT. Anyone who wants his government to have nuclear weapons, whatever threats it is facing, has not understood anything of the history of this planet over the last sixty years.Ok. I think I understand your point.

halva

05-23-2006, 09:39 AM

It would have been better to be able to make the point in a friendlier and more relaxed way, but anyway......

Perhaps it would be better just to do informational postings for a while rather than arguing.

halva

05-23-2006, 09:46 AM

http://acdn.france.free.fr/spip/article.php3?id_article=193&lang=en

Iran’s Dress Code
WHO IS LYING? AND FEEDING DISINFORMATION? WHO IS OPPRESSING WHOM?
Lies and Human Rights

Publication date : 21 May 2006

According to an article by Amir Taheri, published on May 19 in the National Post (Canada) and on 20 May in the New York Post (USA), the new "dress code" adopted at the start of the week by the Iranian parliament (Majlis) proposes to impose on Muslims, both men and women, a type of dress that conforms with islamic and Iranian tradition, and imposes on non-muslims the wearing of distinctive signs: a yellow band for Jews, a red one for Christians, and a blue one for Zoroastrians. Italian television, among others, passed on this news item. But according to an official Iranian denial today, it is "quite simply ridiculous" disinformation.

The matter is serious, of course. It’s enough to reject Iran out of the civilized world and even to justify any “preventive strike”, particularly by Israel. However, somewhere somebody is lying. But who? Only an exact knowledge of the text adopted - and the debate that accompanied it - would give clarity. Meanwhile we offer you the two incompatible versions (below).

Let us remark however that the dress code that will be adopted in autumn - if indeed it is - whether or not it includes items discriminating between religions, will impose on Muslim men and women a highly controversial normalisation of dress and will also result in distinguishing them from other Iranians (believers in other religions or non-believers). This could turn into a instrument for discrimination, even confrontations or pogroms.

With such a law Iran, a nation wanting to be modern (even if, in our view, it is a mistake to see nuclear technology as a sign of modernity) is plunging back into archaism, if not the barbarism seen in instances where (this is only one instance) homosexuals are executed for their homosexuality.

On March 20 last we invited Iran’s ambassador to France to come to the 2nd Rally for international disarmement - nuclear, biological and chemical (RID-NBC) in Saintes and present the Iranian viewpoint about the nuclear crisis. We wrote to him then:

"This concern to make known the Iranian view of the crisis (among others) and to contribute to its peaceful resolution should not in any way be seen as approval for the entirety of the government’s policies, or of the principles and practices of any state whatsoever that imposes rules of a particular religion on all its citizens.

"We protest especially and most vigorously against the grave infringements of the basic rights of men, women and children, and against attacks on the freedom of conscience and expression of individuals and minorities in Iran.

"Likewise, we have difficulty believing in Iran’s peaceful intentions when we hear its president call for Israel to be wiped off the map. Such statements lead us to doubt the assurance your country has given that it will not use for military ends the know-how and technical means it is using first for purposes of ’civilian research’. The fear expressed by numerous governments, as by the IAEA, that Iran may one day follow the detestable example of North Korea does not seem to us totally baseless.

"We therefore object in advance to any use of the present letter that would retain only the passages favourable to Iran’s views and would ignore the serious concerns we have just formulated."

The visit of Mr Moujani, interim head of the embassy, to the 2nd RID in Saintes, and the subsequent debate - both free and courteous - have changed nothing in our position. A theocratic state of any kind (Christian, Muslim, Jewish of other) can only be a source of intolerance, discrimination, repression and violence. Only open and tolerant secularism (which is not itself sectarian) permits the respect due to national and religious traditions to be harmonised with respect for human rights.

This remark applies equally to Israel, another virtually theocratic state - in passing we record our regret that its ambassador in France did not see fit to reply to our invitation to speak in a different debate. The authorities in Israel itself, to whom we later sent our invitation, did not reply either.

To convince people wary of blind passions that Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself, would this nation (itself far from respecting the human rights of Palestinians) prefer disinformation to open debate, discussion and dialogue? One may at least wonder.

As for respecting human rights, we have asked Israel and Iran for two concrete gestures: we asked again recently (as often in the past) that the Israeli authorities lift its restrictions on the freedom of Mordechai Vanunu; we asked recently that the Iranian authorities release the Iranian philosopher Ramin Jahanbegloo and abandon its charges against him for "espionage" and "attacks on state security". These are the same accusations that caused Vanunu to rot in prison for 18 years. But they cannot be taken seriously, even less than in Vanunu’s case. Vanunu had denounced Israel’s secret nuclear weapons, as Israel now accuses Iran’s nuclear research and threatens to wage war on these grounds; Jahanbegloo denounced President Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust and the regime’s authoritarian drift. Both men want democracy, truth, reason, and peace. Well then, be they false spies or true spies, let Israel and Iran do a "spy swap" as used to happen during the Cold War: Vanunu’s freedom in exchange for Jahanbegloo’s.

The first of these nations which proposes this would score a point in its search for democratic respectability. You call yourself democrats, give it a go!

In addition, gentlemen, perhaps you could go further along that line and sit down at the same table (doubtless at first hidden from microphones and cameras) so as to discuss a general and peaceful solution to the problems of your region? You know very well that a large proportion of world opinion wishes for precisely that to happen, as no doubt do the people living in your states. War as a daily or ultimate prospect is not a solution.

ACDN, 20 May 2006

halva

05-23-2006, 09:58 AM

The author of the above text is a Frenchman, Jean-Marie Matagne, who very much believes in the moderating mission of his own country's polity and institutions.

I don't completely identify with his views, but he runs the best anti-nuclear website in Europe that I know of.

halva

05-23-2006, 10:55 AM

Here are some extracts from one of the first texts I wrote on "nuclear deterrence":

Quoting from Ernest Mandel:

"The fact that the Soviet Union has built and stockpiled nuclear weapons has saved humanity up till now from a nuclear holocaust. Without this "balance of terror" it is practically certain that imperialism would already have used nuclear weapons against the "Chinese volunteers" during the Korean war, against the Indochinese revolutions during the second Indochinese war and, indeed, against other revolutions…."

"The existence of the Soviet workers' state as a state of a different social nature from the imperialist states, a state that is not propelled down the road to a nuclear holocaust by its own deadly logic, reveals again its contradictory significance in the world today. That Soviet nuclear strength affords a measure of protection to anti-imperialist revolution confirms the correctness of our Marxist characterisation, and displeases all those inconsistent and superficial detractors who consider that the USSR is of the same social nature as the United States or a like "superpower".

(Ernest Mandel: "Socialism and Nuclear War")1

Dating from a period when his co-thinkers were active in what were then known as "the new social movements" of peace and ecology, Mandel's "Socialism and Nuclear War" was a manual of the ideas that he considered should form a basis for their participation. The above passage according to which Soviet nuclear weapons had supposedly afforded "a measure of protection to anti-imperialist revolution" is characteristic of the assumptions which led to the perception of Trotskyists as defenders of environmentally catastrophic technological development. It provided evidence for the view which relegated them, along with Communists in general, to the status of an element in the "exterminist"2 dynamic whose dissolution was a declared aim of the new social movements.

Now, more than twelve years later, when it has become blindingly apparent that Soviet nuclear weapons, far from affording a measure of protection to "anti-imperialist revolution", were not capable of providing the slightest protection even to the state which possessed them, at the same time as bastions of "anti-imperialism" such as Cuba demonstrate a capacity to survive without the benefits of the balance of terror, these old errors of Mandel remain undigested by his surviving supporters. Like the "new social movements" in which they were then working, most Trotskyist anti-nuclear activists simply moved on to other questions, such as fascism and nationalism, leaving the problem of nuclear weapons to the tender mercies of establishment defence specialists, U.S. congressmen and the like3.

This loss of interest in nuclear weapons cannot be attributed to the intrinsic lack of importance of the nuclear problem or to any considered judgement that it can now be safely left in the hands of the relevant authorities. It is true that under pressure from anti-nuclear lobbyists, chiefly in the United States, sections of the "international community" do indeed still seem to be moving in an anti-nuclear direction. 1996 may even see the establishment of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. But there are many counter-indications: French and British nuclear planners continue serenely with their plans for co-ordination of these two countries' nuclear arsenals. China has resumed its program of underground nuclear testing, and now France has joined it. Nuclear proliferation continues in the ex-Third World. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, renegotiated in New York in April 1995, has been indefinitely renewed more or less on American terms, in effect favouring the continued possession of nuclear weapons by certain states. There is no indication whatsoever that the United States is willing to reduce the size of its nuclear arsenal below a limit of 3,500 strategic warheads.

Gorbachev's call for the abolition of all nuclear weapons by the year 2000, a call which was endorsed by the new social movements, is no longer raised by anybody deemed worthy of mention in the mass media.

Gorbachev and Shevardnadze would both have favoured a deal exchanging Soviet nuclear weapons for dollars in a controlled rundown of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, without insisting on parallel Western reductions. Instead of proceeding on that basis, the international community sanctioned the break-up of the Soviet Union and the removal of its nuclear facilities from central control, to some extent leaving it to "market forces" to decide what should happen to their components4.

Dismantlement of the Soviet (or Russian) nuclear bogy would of course have meant, and would mean, abolition of a central mechanism of political discipline in the advanced Western democracies (it was a basic tenet of the "new social movements" that nuclear weapons served this function in both East and West). The preferred strategy therefore seems to have been to preserve the Russian nuclear arsenal in a state of disintegration. This provides opportunities to evoke not only the old threats, but also new ones like the threat of "nuclear terrorism" by freelance fanatics.

Returning to Mandel, in contradiction to the extracts cited at the beginning of this article, the Trotsyist theoretician argued that "it is imperialism and imperialism alone that vitally and desperately needs nuclear weapons for its counter-revolutionary strategy." He used similar arguments to dismiss the idea that France and Britain should keep their nuclear weapons, as a basis of self-defence of "a future socialist Europe". "Nuclear self-defence", he argued, "is an absurd notion; you can't defend yourself by exposing yourself to death from nuclear fall-out."

Despite these ambiguities, Mandel's professed faith in "the balance of terror" remained intact. There was a logical contradiction here. On the one hand Mandel was convinced that media propaganda about "limited nuclear war in Europe" was bluff: "The general public may be fooled by monstrous talk of nuclear wars which will only cost some hundreds of millions (sic) of dead and that "those who have nuclear shelters will survive". Those in power are not duped." On the other hand by subscribing to the theory of nuclear deterrence he represented Western power centres as deterred ("duped") by the nuclear arsenal of the Soviets. If those in power are not duped it would make no difference to Western behaviour whether the Soviets had or did not have nuclear weapons. This has since been confirmed by developments.

A person whose sense of political identity had been predicated on faith in "the balance of terror", i.e. on a conception that the Soviet nuclear arsenal is, as it were, in some sense defending "us", would find this realisation (or half-realisation) disorienting and demoralising. The fact that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union Mandel had nothing at all to say on the question of nuclear weapons must be symptomatic of an unacknowledged awareness of having been utterly mistaken on a question of the deepest political (indeed "existential") significance.

The eclipse of the eighties' peace movements

(This section omitted)

halva

05-23-2006, 10:59 AM

Where were the unilateralists?

The failure of both the pacifist-ecologist and the revolutionary Marxist component of the "new social movements" in the crucial conjuncture of August 1991 is evident. Retrospectively, this failure can be seen to stem from diametrically opposed factors: the END activists possessed the concept of a common civil society in Eastern and Western Europe but no unequivocal commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament. The revolutionary Marxists were unilateralists but had difficulties with the idea that the Soviet "workers’ state" and not one of the "bourgeois" states (such as Britain) should be the initial testing ground for projects of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Mandel’s conception of unilateralism comes out clearly enough in "Socialism and Nuclear War": "Every mass movement in the West", he writes, "has to fight for unilateral removal of its own government’s nuclear weapons." The "non-aligned" demand for mutual and parallel nuclear disarmament "should not become the central goal of the anti-war movement" because "if that happens the movement will withdraw from the area of mass mobilisation in the streets of Western cities, to become a diplomatic pressure group in Geneva, Washington and Moscow; and the movement will see its democratic non-exclusive character dissolve under the pressure of anti-unilateralism, red-baiting and anti-activism."

This passage shows a keen enough sensitivity to the dangers facing advocates of unilateral nuclear disarmament in Western countries but leaves out of account the political problems of their Soviet bloc counterparts like the movement against nuclear testing in Kazakhstan and its supporters in the rest of the Soviet Union. Should they or should they not have subscribed to Mandel’s view that "Soviet nuclear strength affords a measure of protection to the anti-imperialist revolution"?

If Trotsky had lived into the age of the Bomb he may have tried to determine how far nuclear weapons could be classified as weapons like any other, essentially of interest only to the military technicians on either side of the class divide, and how far they might constitute a phenomenon following its own logic independent of the fluctuations of the "international class struggle".

The question of defence of the Soviet Union that had so divided Trotskyists, related as it was to the "class nature" of the Soviet Union, would have been further complicated by a factoring in of the nuclear weapons problem. There would have arisen the question of the appropriateness of such weapons of indiscriminate destruction to the defence of any emancipatory project. The Soviet nuclear arsenal - let us ponder the fact - was the highest embodiment of "socialism in one country". It was its supreme creation.

The pacifist-ecologist majority in the "new social movements" had sidestepped divisive Trotskyist-type disputes over the class nature of the Soviet state by displacing onto capitalist society the ambiguities of the Trotkysit attitude to "really existing socialism". Just as Trotskyists both identified with and dissociated themselves from the Communist states, so the pacifist-ecologist element in the independent peace movements saw civil society as both represented in and suppressed by the parliamentary democracy of the developed capitalist states. The view that the needs of civil society were to some extent catered for in pluralistic Western European-type parliamentary regimes enabled Mary Kaldor, for instance, at difficult points in the national independence struggle of the Baltic States, to feel free to offer advice to the British government on its policies towards the Soviet Union.

In relation to the identifiably totalitarian regimes of the Communist bloc, a simple state-power vs civil society dichotomy was adopted by the majority in the "new social movements" which tended to blur over the distinction between Communism as a political current and Communism as a state ideology. To the extent that Communists remained in control of the state machinery of the Soviet Union this simplistic analysis enabled the movements to remain in step with the unfolding "political revolution".

In August 1991, however, the banning of the Soviet Communist Party and its separation from the organs of the state signified a change in its objective identity: with the transfer of state authority and thus the nuclear arsenal into the hands of the opponents of Communism, Soviet Communists effectively joined civil society.

An appeal at this time from the "new social movements" of Western Europe to civil society in the
Soviet Union (including the Communists) to support the internationally-supervised destruction of the Soviet nuclear arsenal would have made immediately transparent the identity of interests of Russian (or ex-Soviet) and Western European civil society.

No such appeal was forthcoming. The movements which had spent the entire decade of the 80s undermining, in the name of civil society, the power of the Communist party-state in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, lost interest in Russian civil society the instant that Communists, forfeiting their control of Soviet nuclear weapons, joined it.

whitemajikman

05-23-2006, 03:32 PM

So Whiteman, are you going to follow your buddies' lead and play scared turtle? Never, never, never have I put anyone on 'ignore'. Even the worst have something to reveal to those whose high calling is to study the grand range of humanity. In fact the magnificent misfits are the key to understanding the outer borders of insanity. As the Jane Goodall of the board ALL you higher and less than higher apes are included in my field of view. And I take notes! Maybe I'll write you up.

Why Would I Ignore You .......

Your False Premises are very entertaining ...........

Your So Ignorant You Can't Even Get Jane Goodall's Field Of Research Right.......LMAO.

Also Dingo,Your arrogant Demeanor and Self-Importance is more in tune with people whom suffer from a God Complex than anything else.........

Your A Gem in the Cyber World..........So go ahead and "write me up"..........

But Don't Be Surprised When I Return The Favor........LOL

All My Jewish Relatives Would Love To See Your little Expos'e and laugh at your extreme stupidity........and False Witnessing.

WMM

Dingo

05-23-2006, 04:40 PM

Whiteman. Your A Gem in the Cyber World..........So go ahead and "write me up"

I agree. And those in the Jane Goodall Institute of Higher Primate Research are always pleased when willing primate subjects see the importance of their being an object of study. It is particularly helpful if they have special wierd characteristics that push the envelope of perverse possibilities. It goes a long way to explain a lot of histories bad turns and is transferable to those in the very modern business of genetic repair.

whitemajikman

05-23-2006, 05:57 PM

I agree. And those in the Jane Goodall Institute of Higher Primate Research are always pleased when particular primate subjects see the importance of their being an object of study. It is particularly helpful if they have special wierd characteristics that push the envelope of perverse possibilities. It goes a long way to explain a lot of histories bad turns and is transferable to those in the very modern business of genetic repair.

Dingo, Maybe you should First Enquire about what a Primate Is........?

LMAO.........

Otherwise You Just May Look More Foolish than you already do......

Also Do You Realize that your Wierd Characteristics are a huge part of why I and many others Tolerate you for your pure Entertainment Value.

Probably not........

WMM

Dingo

05-23-2006, 06:37 PM

WierdPrimateMan. Dingo, Maybe you should First Enquire about what a Primate Is........?

LMAO.........

Otherwise You Just May Look More Foolish than you already do......

Websters definition of Primate:
Any member of the most highly developed order of animals, composed of man, the apes, monkeys, lemurs etc.

I and many others Tolerate you for your pure Entertainment Value.

I agree, I am highly entertaining. That is how I am sometimes able to insinuate my truths to the terminally obtuse.

whitemajikman

05-23-2006, 09:22 PM

I agree, I am highly entertaining. That is how I am sometimes able to insinuate my truths to the terminally obtuse

Dingo, You Keep Believing Your own Bullshit..........

I Will Just Sit Back and Laugh........

Because The TRUTH is Your Truth is Nothing More Than an opinion .....

And As we All Know.......Opinion is Far From The Truth......Because It Is Highly Subjective and is based upon the culmination of the life experiences which form that Opinion.......

In Other Words ......

If You Truly Believe That Your Opinion Is TRUTH.......

Your More Of An Idiot Than I initially Gave You Credit For.........

Also I Am Glad You Know What Primate Means.......

But Why Did You Have to Look It Up? HMMMMMM?

LMAO

WMM

halva

05-23-2006, 10:16 PM

Just in case there is anyone interested in the original subject matter of this thread, which had to do with the United States, Israel and Iran, nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, there is another point of information to add, i.e. Margaret Thatcher.

She was one politician who wanted to see abolition of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. After that state's collapse she urged decisive action. She also took up the issue of climate change. As a result she was removed from the Prime Ministership and from leadership of the Tories.

Dingo

05-24-2006, 01:05 AM

WeirdPrimateMan. Because The TRUTH is Your Truth is Nothing More Than an opinion .....

And As we All Know.......Opinion is Far From The Truth......Because It Is Highly Subjective and is based upon the culmination of the life experiences which form that Opinion.......

In Other Words ......

If You Truly Believe That Your Opinion Is TRUTH.......

Your More Of An Idiot Than I initially Gave You Credit For.........

Okay I engaged in a little hyperbole. Just to show you how open to criticism and willing to recognise and correct error I am, I will amend my comment. Try this.

Compared to Whiteman my opinion seems to take on the color of truth but that is only an illusion aided and abetted by the clearly canyon sized manifestly superior quality of my opinion. How's that?

Also I Am Glad You Know What Primate Means.......
The important thing is I have on one matter released you from error. A mountain of others await me. My work continues.

whitemajikman

05-24-2006, 07:55 PM

Compared to Whiteman my opinion seems to take on the color of truth but that is only an illusion aided and abetted by the clearly canyon sized manifestly superior quality of my opinion. How's that?

It's Pure Arrogant Lunacy ..........

Your Opinion Is Like You..........

All Talk And No Substance.........

WMM

Dingo

05-24-2006, 09:14 PM

It's Pure Arrogant Lunacy ..........

Your Opinion Is Like You..........

All Talk And No Substance.........

WMM
Ah Whiteman responds with a lame cliche. I will take that as an affirmation of my previous post. LOL

halva

05-24-2006, 09:24 PM

http://acdn.france.free.fr/spip/article.php3?id_article=178&lang=en

Tehran triangle: Russia, U.S. and nuclear power
Interview : Viktor Mikhailov by Viktor Litovkine

Publication date : 2 April 2006

Russian Academician physicist Viktor Mikhalkov, former minister of Nuclear Energy from 1992 to 1998, is currently director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Stability.

Novosti, 10 & 13 March, 2006

Question: Experts say you were one of the fathers of the Iranian nuclear industry. Can you describe its current situation?

Answer: It is true that I was among the initiators and participated in drafting a contract for the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. The United States did not want to cooperate with us in the nuclear sphere and advanced unacceptable conditions. Therefore, we had to go east - to Iran, China and India. The Russian nuclear industry was dying; we had to save it and create jobs for unique specialists so as to prevent them from emigrating to countries that want to create their own nuclear bombs. I have not been to Iran since I had left the post of the nuclear minister. But during my visits there I saw that Iran had very high nuclear research standards, which is not surprising. (...)

Question: What is your general assessment of Iran’s nuclear capability now?

Answer: Though I am hardly in a position to judge, I have seen and talked to talented young experts when visiting their nuclear centers. Many of those people had graduated from universities in Western Europe and the United States; moreover, I just recently made a small inquiry to learn that around 10,000 young specialists are still being trained there. Russia has never trained Iranians, except for Bushehr power plant operators. The West has helped greatly build Tehran’s nuclear industry, a great embarrassment for the Americans nowadays: when they tell me they do not believe Iran really needs a national nuclear power industry, I just ask them: “OK, but were it not you who once said you were going to build 20 NPPs there? Could you then explain why we cannot do now what you thought was quite appropriate for yourselves?”

They won’t answer, but the answer is simple enough. A country with a national nuclear power capability sets firmly on the cutting edge of global technology. This means that there will always be jobs at home, and young people will stay at home. A country has no future if its young generation is fleeing abroad.

My assessment of Iran’s nuclear level would be straightforward: it is very high. I have seen people working with neutron generators there who could very ably handle the 3D neutron registration software, a very complicated package (they received it from France) which shows a very realistic pattern of neutron flows stemming from a nuclear fission reaction.

In the early 1990s, when I was in Iran for the first time, I saw there the magnificent American Sun 4 and Sun 5 computers, which the U.S. barred from selling to Russia but sold freely to Iran; and they were working there very effectively. It is true that Iranian girls wear black shawls to conceal their hair but the girls I saw - who had also graduated from U.S. universities - were very smart when it came to handling state-of-the-art computers. The Iranians just took the United States by surprise by toppling the shah and starting a new state that would not pander to Washington. In short, it was the United States who built Iran’s nuclear workforce.

Historically, Persian people have been very intellectual. Of course, Iran saw a major setback in the beginning of the 19th century when Europe took the lead. But they have sent their young people to learn from the West, many are trained in the West now, and, I think, their research capability is very good.

And it has, in fact, very little to do with oil and gas. What the Americans do not like is Iran’s national status, its government, its independence, and its reluctance to take orders from U.S. diplomats. This is a separate issue and it has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

Question: Do we need to worry about an Iranian nuclear bomb in the near future?

Answer: People often ask me this question, which sometimes is formulated somewhat differently: “Do you think they want it or think about it?” I answer, yes, I do; they definitely want it and they clearly think about it, as nuclear weapons have become a critical factor of independence and sovereignty. The U.S. policy is mainly about exporting democracy by making offers one cannot refuse. They are doing this to countries whose history dates back millennia and who have unthinkable contributions to mankind under their belt. What Americans do not know how to do is take into account others’ national sensitivities, customs, and traditions. What they are doing is trying to inculcate those countries with American lifestyles - something that is hardly possible.

Question: Back to Iran. Can it ultimately create a nuclear weapon?

Answer: Of course, it can. Any highly developed country can do this, it’s available on the Internet, if you like. The truth is that one needs much money and time. In the case of Iran, I think, they will do it in 5-10 years. I mean, they will be able to build a basic nuclear weapon. This weapon will not be as modern as Russian or American, but it does not matter - the Americans are afraid of any, even old, nukes. Washington understands, sure enough, that however hard they try to build a nuclear missile shield, you don’t have to deliver a nuke through space where the entire world will see it. There are many other ways, and what they are ultimately afraid of is at least one blast inside the United States. Their people will bury any administration that allows it to happen.

Question: The West does not trust Tehran. Why is Russia selling its nuclear technology to Iran?

Answer: Russia has never sold any nuclear technology. To tell you more, Russia, since Soviet times, has been constantly on watch for nuclear proliferation. Proliferation was something only the West, with its century-old free market economy, could engage into. This is just because a free market economy is profit-oriented. If some relevant materials or technologies appeared and was not included in prohibitive lists fast enough (state authorities were rarely fast enough), it was sold without ceremony.

Everything the Iranians have today has come from the West. Even our fuel for nuclear power plants will be withdrawn for reprocessing at home and replaced with fresh cells. What President [George W.] Bush is promoting now, as if it were his own brilliant idea, a nuclear fuel leasing system, when a country pays for fuel and we deliver on the conditions of removing fuel wastes. Some Russian experts and I proposed it more than a decade ago. But the Americans did not support us. Their millionaire Alex Copson was in this business then and he wanted to do this, but President Clinton did not allow him to.

Question: Was Copson working with the Department of Energy?

Answer: He wasn’t. Our acquaintance was a coincidence, in fact; he came to me with a project to lease a Pacific atoll and to use it as nuclear dumpsite and production facility for nuclear fuel - in order to have a dumpsite in a remote...

Question: And well-guarded, I expect?

Answer: ...absolutely - remote, neutral territory. Well, the point is, we have never sold anything abroad because the Americans were there. They sold, I have already mentioned that, even plutonium, to say nothing of other things. Do you know how Israel and South Africa gained access to nuclear weapons? It’s clear they did.

Question: How?

Answer: With help from the U.S.

Question: There is information that the British helped Israel...

Answer: They did but they were far from alone there. Israelis got a great deal of help from Washington through a British-American company in South Africa. In Africa isotopes were separated by filtering uranium hexafluoride through a convergent-divergent nozzle, rather than in a centrifuge or by diffusion. Israelis may have got one or two [nuclear] charges and even tested them.

Later, South Africa had to abandon all those activities. I have been there and I can say the facilities were working very effectively as long as the white minority was in charge. They are not working any longer, small bits may have gone to Israel - may have gone, mind you, but in any case they have stored them for too long to retain real effect.

Question: Were you referring to the nuclear charges?

Answer: Yes. Israelis may have withdrawn them from South Africa but even so, I guess, Israel cannot be a nuclear power. They were not able to do anything at home because they had no capacity and no place to put it, what with the entire Israeli territory immediately subject to hostile incoming fire.

Question: Few think like you when the Israeli nuclear capability is on the table. Some respected researchers claim Tel-Aviv has nearly 200 nuclear charges.

Answer: You don’t say so! They might have two or three, which are in any case as old as sin and yield no more than a kiloton. This explains why Israel is silent on the issue, they just have little to say. Moreover, there is really little need for nuclear weapons when you have such an umbrella as the United States.

halva

05-24-2006, 09:26 PM

Question: Back to Iran again, if you don’t mind. Why do you think Tehran has rejected the European pleas to leave the International Atomic Energy Agency’s seals in place and keep from independent reactor research?

Answer: That’s because I think it will take Europeans very long before they regain Iran’s trust. They had activities there, and one day they ran away, leaving everything behind. Siemens, a respected European, German, corporation, abandoned everything as Americans pressed for it. Tehran, aware that this could happen again at any time, has clearly not treated its talks with the European Trio seriously enough.

Russia is different. They can see how we treat them; they can see that we support nuclear power industries and peaceful nuclear applications; we have proposed a joint venture that will bring profit to them as well as to us. What to us is going to be a good nuclear market, to them is going to be an opportunity to see what a [nuclear enrichment] facility is and how it works. To build all the centrifuges and everything for just one nuclear reactor would be ridiculous. Right now, to build all this would be a waste of money because the return on such investment will come in a hundred years, if ever.

We told the Iranians that enrichment would be on the table as soon as they had plans for at least a dozen NPPs. They asked me whether we could build in Iran something like a facility we had built in China. But China is not Iran - they have diffusion and other facilities, they really need such things.

Question: Why would Tehran agree to build such a facility together with Russia?

Answer: I don’t think a joint venture is interesting to them commercially right now; it is probably just a way to alleviate nuclear tensions that have been rising around Iran exponentially and to deny the Americans an opportunity to justify a military solution. You know, the Americans have deployed over 100,000 personnel in the neighboring Iraq; they have armor and air support and they have done everything to cross the border if required... I think the Iranians understand they need to keep Washington from doing this, at least for this spring. The Americans will hardly go to war in the scorching Iranian summer.

Question: The Americans might well opt for a missile strike instead...

Answer: Their missiles will come home to roost if they do it. Their task force in Iraq is already struggling, and imagine how dangerous their position will be if the Iranian army also launches an offensive. Iran may receive massive support from the broader Muslim world as well. A possible option would be to ask Israel to strike [Iran], but they will not achieve anything because they do not know the exact locations and levels of protection. The recent American interest in penetrator munitions that would go off at hundred-meter depths is far from accidental. These munitions have yet to be built, though. In short, a missile strike would do the U.S. more harm than good. This helps explain their tolerance to our talks with Iran. I think the Iranians will agree to our proposals though the talks will take months, through March and April, at least, to delay Americans beyond the period of [climatic] conditions appropriate for military action. Any delay is good for Iran. What would also be good for them is an opportunity to see how such facilities work. They will get an insight into our production lines, though, importantly, not into our centrifuge know-how.

Question: What could be Russia’s role in helping solve Iran’s ‘nuclear problem?’

Answer: Primarily, Russia could do it through a joint venture with Iran, providing services to everyone interested in nuclear power development but not interested in handling isotope enrichment. Another question here is, I think, much more important. Even if there is restraint on military action, Iran may be subject to the so-called economic sanctions. If this country joins in, we will have to withdraw all our workforce from Iran and abandon all we did there, like we did in North Korea in the early 1990s. By then, we had built a research reactor there, thoroughly explored the territory to select a place for a nuclear power plant, and developed a broad personnel training effort.

Just two years after we had abandoned all this, the Americans created the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization with the United States, Japan, South and North Korea - not Russia, mind you, and said, OK, we are here to build a water-cooled reactor. Now Russia is in the dark as to what is going on there. In fact, we have been thrown out of that market, though no one was ever going to transfer nuclear weapons or technology to North Korea, and no one was going to defy the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What worries me is that preconditions for the same mistake are building here, in Iran. However, only fools repeat such mistakes; clever people never do that.

Question: How is Russia going to get Iranian guarantees that it will not seek a nuclear weapon?

Answer: Russia does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons and thinks that Tehran’s nuclear desire should be restrained. But the ball is on the America’s side now; They need to decide whether they like Iran or not, to realize that they are dealing with an ancient historic world power that will not accept pressure and threats. It might take time, but what is needed is negotiations, however lengthy.

Only the United States is in a position to alleviate this tension. Weapons are not going to provide a solution; with weapons, things will be even worse than the current appalling situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. What kind of democracy are you going to get if democracy is exported through use of force?

Question: What if the Iranians reject Russia’s offer?

Answer: They won’t. However, I fear the Americans will press for sanctions even if they don’t.

Question: But they surely cannot make the entire world impose sanctions if Iran accepts our proposal?

Answer: I am afraid they could. Remember North Korea. Almost everyone pandered to Washington then, and we did, special thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev.

Question: Putin will not necessarily do what Mikhail [Gorbachev] broke his back on.

Answer: He hopefully won’t. However, Putin is also in a tight corner, and so is entire Russia. So far we have been picking up great windfalls from high oil and gas prices but let’s think what happens if windfalls cease to go down. What we have we clearly will not have forever. I believe in reason. Reason dictates that to start a wa