← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 15686 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2004-11-18
2004-11-18 14:55 | User Profile
[COLOR=Navy]Colin runs one last errand for Norm 'n' Midge on his way out the door.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE][SIZE=4]Iran Trying to Fit Missiles for Nuclear Weapons[/SIZE] [I]Powell Says U.S. Has Intelligence on Tehran's Plans[/I] By ALAN CLENDENNING, AP
SANTIAGO, Chile (Nov. 18) -- The United States has intelligence indicating Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said.
Powell partially confirmed claims by an Iranian opposition group that Tehran is deceiving the United Nations and is attempting to secretly continue activities meant to give it atomic arms by next year.
''I have seen intelligence which would corroborate what this dissident group is saying,'' Powell told reporters Wednesday as he traveled to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago. ''And it should be of concern to all parties.''
Pressed by reporters on the intelligence reports, Powell said the intelligence indicates that Iran ''had been actively working on delivery systems'' capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.
Talk About It
÷ Chat | Post Messages
Powell said there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has developed the technology to make a nuclear weapon, but suggested that the regime is working to adapt missiles for nuclear warheads.
''I'm talking about information that says that they not only had these missiles, but I'm aware of information that suggests they were working hard as to how to put the two together,'' Powell said.
A senior official for the National Council for Resistance in Iran said Tuesday that a bomb diagram - along with an unspecified amount of weapons-grade uranium - was provided to Iran by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced former head of Pakistani's nuclear development which was tied to both Iran and Libya.
He said the designs were handed to the Iranians between 1994 and 1996, while Khan delivered HEU - highly enriched uranium - in 2001.
Banned in the United States as a terrorist organization, the group was instrumental in 2002 in revealing Iran's enrichment program in the central city of Natanz, based on what it said was information provided by sources in Iran.
Click Here Broadband Only
The opposition group says a facility at Lavizan-Shian northeast of Tehran was part of a secret nuclear weapons program.
Powell declined comment on Khan, but said ''for 20 years the Iranians have been trying to hide things from the international community.''
Iran says its sole interest is to generate nuclear fuel through low-level uranium enrichment, but the United States suspects Iran wants to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium.
Enrichment does not violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but the International Atomic Energy Agency and most of its members want Iran to scrap enrichment plans as a confidence building measure.
Iran announced suspension of enrichment last week, and the agency said it would police that commitment starting next week, in advance of a Nov. 25 IAEA board meeting.
The pledge reduced Washington's hopes of having the board refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for alleged violations of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
Tehran has not dropped plans to run 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium for what it says will be the fuel requirements of a nuclear reactor to be finished next year.
It currently possesses less than 1,000 centrifuges. But if it added 500 centrifuges, experts say Iran would be able to make enough weapons-grade uranium to make a bomb annually.
11-18-04 08:02 EST
[I]Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. [/I] [/QUOTE]
2004-11-18 15:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Pressed by reporters on the intelligence reports, Powell said the intelligence indicates that Iran ''had been actively working on delivery systems'' capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.[/QUOTE]
After all the known and documented lies of Iraq, why in the world would anyone believe this administration about this kind of 'intelligence'?
2004-11-18 21:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]After all the known and documented lies of Iraq, why in the world would anyone believe this administration about this kind of 'intelligence'?[/QUOTE]
What is the consensus about war with Iran.
Will it happen?
If so, when?
My $.02: it will happen within one year, but first there will have to be a failure of the European initiative. Then Israel hit Iran's nuclear facilities, and after that I can't predict the results, expect that it's bound to be bad. We should be hearing about reinstituion of the draft soon, probably by the end of this year.
Walter
2004-11-18 23:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]What is the consensus about war with Iran.
Will it happen?
If so, when?
My $.02: it will happen within one year, but first there will have to be a failure of the European initiative. Then Israel hit Iran's nuclear facilities, and after that I can't predict the results, expect that it's bound to be bad. We should be hearing about reinstituion of the draft soon, probably by the end of this year.[/QUOTE]
If Bush were smart (Ha!), he'd wait at least a year after brining back the draft, like FDR did when he brought it back in 1940, so that we might have some hope of having sufficient conventional forces to take on Iran. The Jews are getting too antsy (with frankly good reason - you can kill over 80% of the Jewish population of Israel with just two medium-sized nuclear warheads - and I'm sure the Palestinians would willingly forgive their hundreds of thousands of "collateral" casualies, as they took to the work of finishing off the remaining Jews - presumably with no small amount of gusto), so I see no reason to assume they'll wait even until Bush's inauguration on 1/20/05 to launch their unprovoked, illegal. butcherous attack on the legitimate nuclear-industrial facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran (not than ANYONE really wants Islamists having nukes, of course, but Iran is going to get them absent a conflict bearing a close resemblance to a Third World War, thus perhaps it would be wiser to simply accomodate one's nation to the new shift in the nuclear balance of power (or better yet, not waiting until North Korea and Iran have more-or-less already joined the nucler club before attempting anything akin to a serious effort to curtail their nuclear weapons programs). One way or another, some portion of the Iranian and/or the Pakistani and/or the Russian nuclear arsenal is going to get detonated in Tel Aviv before this decade is out, and quite possibly before 1/1/06. Certainly before that date, the draft will be back, and/or we'll be at war with Iran, along with our only "ally," Israel, probably both, and most likely before June 1st of next year.
2004-11-19 00:11 | User Profile
Well amigos, China and France are getting their oil from Iran so tell me this, would the US allowed China to invade Saudi Arabia?
For a while now China is getting closer to Iran, now investing over two billions dollars in order to put in a new oil pipe line in Iran, so, is ok for Iran to say "We don't have nuclear weapons" because they will have China next to them.
Every day that goes by Iran will be getting stronger with the US getting weaker, even with the draft we wont have the needed troops to declare war on Iran because by then I KNOW that there will be another war elsewhere, and like I said before, I just would love to see the Israelis jump into the fire with us because that will be all that will take in order to unite ALL muslims against the US and Israel.
And do you really think that the UK and others that are with the US now will stay anywhere near us if that was to happen? I don't think so.
2004-11-19 05:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE]One way or another, some portion of the Iranian and/or the Pakistani and/or the Russian nuclear arsenal is going to get detonated in Tel Aviv before this decade is out, and quite possibly before 1/1/06. Certainly before that date, the draft will be back, and/or we'll be at war with Iran, along with our only "ally," Israel, probably both, and most likely before June 1st of next year.[/QUOTE]
I commend you for your bold prediction.
I think that neither Israel (which controls US foreign policy) nor Iran can do otherwise. Like I said before, it's a Greek tragedy. None of the players can really do otherwise. As you point out, Israel is so small and its population so concentrated in Tel Aviv and its environs that one nuke there would devastate the entire country. And of course Iran really can't do otherwise, since it simply cannot leave itself at the mercy of the (unspoken of) Israeli force de frappe.
That means an attack on Iran and a military draft in the United States. The time frame is hard to predict, but I think 2005 will be a red letter year.
Walter
2004-11-19 12:37 | User Profile
Since Jerusalem is a holy city for Muslims too, wouldn't it be more probable that if and when Mussies get their nukes, they'll rather aim them at places like Tel Aviv and Haifa?
(Of course, if Israelis are nuked, they'll wipe out Mecca and Medina before they go down...)
Petr
2004-11-19 16:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Since Jerusalem is a holy city for Muslims too, wouldn't it be more probable that if and when Mussies get their nukes, they'll rather aim them at places like Tel Aviv and Haifa?
(Of course, if Israelis are nuked, they'll wipe out Mecca and Medina before they go down...)[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't put too much faith in the continued existence of Berlin, Rome and Paris either, given such a contingency....
2004-11-19 17:50 | User Profile
Aren't Russia and China big benefactors from Iranian oil contracts?
I happen to catch part of a "sermon" by a "Christian" Zionut TV "preacher" and his gleeful interpetation of Armegeddon as written in Revelation. In one segment he was claiming Satan's '200 million man army' spoken of in Chapter 9 (I think) will be supplied by Russia and China and they will ultimately be defeated. The current US "war" in "Babylon" was linked up with Revelation verses which claim this is the "first stages" of Armegeddon. Needless to say I was very close to breaking my TV in disgust for these demented and defective individual charlatans.
Folks, these people are seriously insane. WWIII, WWIV or WWDubya, whatever you want to call it, is coming. I hate saying that, but I can't see anyone putting the brakes on a runaway US-Israeli juggernaut.
2004-11-20 21:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]What is the consensus about war with Iran.
Will it happen?
If so, when?...
Walter[/QUOTE]
I believe it is not likely due to the financial weaknesses in the U.S. economy. I suspect that Bush is being read the riot act at the A.P.E.C. summit.
2004-11-21 09:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]I believe it is not likely due to the financial weaknesses in the U.S. economy. I suspect that Bush is being read the riot act at the A.P.E.C. summit.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's the "immoveable object" part of the equation, but total Yahoodian power over our foreign policy is the "irresistable force."
The Empire is in a total bind. They can't raise taxes a lot for fear of derailing the weak consumer-driven recovery and alienating the already pi$$ed off white middle class. On the other hand they can't cut social spending (Shrub and Rove gave us the biggest increase in the welfare state since LBJ last year, which the Freeper "conservatives" support) lest the Negroes, Sons of Sodom, and all the Sally Steriles of the world walk out of the Great Yahoodian Extortion Coalition.
And if they do anything to pi$$ off the Russkies of the Chinks - like invading Iran without first buying them off - they'll start denominating their contracts in Euro and you can change your bucks in for monopoly money.
The two are just feeling each other's gravity fields right about now.
I'm officially sticking my neck out and predicting a very interesting 2005.
And you know what our Chinese brothers say about interesting times.
Walter
2004-11-21 19:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]I believe it is not likely due to the financial weaknesses in the U.S. economy. I suspect that Bush is being read the riot act at the A.P.E.C. summit.[/QUOTE]
Maybe. All they're reporting is that he's kissing Fox's butt and promising to push amnesty for illegals again.
You really have to scratch your head about that and wonder if Fox has something dirty on this guy. Was Bush caught on video doing tequila shots at a donkey show in Juarez a few years back? It just doesn't make sense the way Jorge kow-tows to this guy Fox.
2004-11-21 19:36 | User Profile
Walter,
Everything you wrote above I concur with and I believe that the Neocons have made a clean sweep of this administration. However, if there is one thing I've learned from history it is this; that all military power is based on strong economic power, that is to say, manufacturing (I include enegy production here as well) and agricultural. The wealth created from these are what makes it possible to conduct war independently from outside help. France, in 1777 would be an example of the latter.
This is what I am thinking. I'm not sure the Talmudists can buy the Chicoms off for the reasons that they need the oil for their continued economic expansion. They would be hard pressed to replace the Iranian oil if those production facilities were damaged or the supply disrupted. I don't think that paper money would be a fair exchange for the oil and the ensuing economic damage that would occur with oil close to being in short supply as things stand now. It looks to me like they are pursuing a policy of becoming a manufacturing economy using the U.S. economic developement of the last century and a half as a template with our consumers paying for it. Their goal, in my opinion, is to become the number one world power and allowing themselves to be bought off would defeat this objective of weakening us.
I can see them, other east asian countries and Europe coming together on this and simply telling the Bush gang "no" to any more loans or purchases of Treasury notes, for I believe that plutocratic greed has lead to so much de-industrialization that it appears to me that they may have the upper hand to exert the leverage to do this. It is possible that those plutocrats who are making so much money off trade with China might break with the Neocons over this too. For the moment there is simply too much money to be made with the status quo for these people. As for Israel a way to reign them in would be for some one to point out to them that if the dollar is depreciated that it will affect them in a disasterous way.
Of course, I admit that this is a "faith based" administration :glare: so there is a possibilty that the religious fanatics may prevail and try bombing Iran, but I regard this as rather unlikely.
I base my beliefs on articles like the one below that I have read. In any event I think that we will find ourselves "live(ing) in interesting times."
Tension rises as China scours the globe for energy By Richard Spencer (Filed: 19/11/2004)
China's insatiable demand for energy is prompting fears of financial and diplomatic collisions around the globe as it seeks reliable supplies of oil from as far away as Brazil and Sudan.
An intrusion into Japanese territorial waters by a Chinese nuclear submarine last week and a trade deal with Brazil are the latest apparently unconnected consequences of China's soaring economic growth.
Increased car usage in China is creating a high demand for petrol The connection, however, lies in an order issued last year by President Hu Jintao to seek secure oil supplies abroad ââ¬â preferably ones which could not be stopped by America in case of conflict over Taiwan.
The submarine incident was put down to a "technical error" by the Chinese government, which apologised to Japan.
But even before the incident the People's Daily, the government mouthpiece, had commented that competition over the East China Sea between the two countries was "only a prelude of the game between China and Japan in the arena of international energy".
The Brazil trade deal included funding for a joint oil-drilling and pipeline programme at a cost that experts said would add up to three times the cost of simply buying oil on the market.
The West, however, has paid little attention to these developments. For the United States and Europe are far more concerned with the even more sensitive issues of China's relations with "pariah states".
In September, China threatened to veto any move to impose sanctions on Sudan over the atrocities in Darfur. It has invested $3 billion in the African country's oil industry, which supplies it with seven per cent of its needs.
Then, this month, it said that it opposed moves to refer Iran's nuclear stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency to the United Nations Security Council.
A week before, China's second biggest state oil firm had signed a $70 billion deal for oilfield and natural gas development with Iran, which already supplies 13 per cent of China's needs.
China has its own reserves of oil and natural gas and once was a net oil exporter. But as its economy has expanded by an average of nine per cent per year for the last two decades, so has its demand for energy.
This year it overtook Japan as the world's second largest consumer of energy, behind the US.
Its projected demand, boosted by a huge rise in car ownership as well as the need to find alternatives to polluting coal for electricity generation, has contributed to the surge in the price of oil this year. Shortages are already leading to power cuts in the big cities.
Since President Hu ordered state-owned oil firms to "go abroad" to ensure supply, they have begun drilling for gas in the East China Sea, just west of the line that Japan regards as its border.
Japan protested, to no avail, that the project should be a joint one.
The two are also set to clash over Russia's oil wealth. China is furious that Japan has outbid it in their battle to determine the route of the pipeline that Russia intends to build to the Far East.
Japan favoured a route to the sea, enabling oil to be shipped to both Japan and China. China wanted an overland route through its own territory, which would give it ultimate control if hostilities broke out.
Increasingly, analysts are saying that China's efforts have gone beyond what is safe or even in its own interests.
Claude Mandil, the executive director of the International Energy Agency in Paris, said the reserves in the East China Sea were hardly worth the trouble.
"Nobody thinks that there will be a lot of oil and gas in this part of the world," he said.
"It may be a difficult political issue but I don't think the energy content is worthwhile."
Eurasia Group, a New York-based firm of political analysts, said its oil experts worked out that China was paying such an inflated price for its investment in Brazil that the cost for the oil it ended up with was three times the market price.
"If China's economy falters, which, in my view, appears increasingly likely, then commodity prices will plummet, and with them, the value of the assets that produce them," Jason Kindopp, Eurasia's lead China analyst, said.
"Beijing may end up in a early 1990s Japan situation, where it is forced to sell recently purchased overseas assets for a fraction of what it paid for them."
China's wider aggression to secure oil and gas was the greatest threat to its international standing in the next decade.
"Sudan is the primary example," he said.
"It marks the first time in recent years that China has promised to wield its veto power in the UN Security Council against a petition initiated by the United States and backed by France and Great Britain."
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
[url]http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/19/wchina19.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/19/ixworld.html[/url]
2004-11-21 19:41 | User Profile
Tex,
Maybe he's like those folks we know who think we have a religious duty to open our country to these "poor souls". I really think that this is a quid pro quo for the money the plutocrats have invested in him.
2004-11-21 20:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]I really think that this is a quid pro quo for the money the plutocrats have invested in him.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure that's it and certainly not any religious concern. The only explanation I can come up with is that it is a major goal of the New World Order globalists, for whom we know Bush is the appointed step-and-fetch-it.
Admittedly I was a bit taken aback when this amnesty issue was the first thing he came out with after getting re-elected. Almost as much as when Clinton came out of the gate with gays in the military.
Over the next year or so we need to be showing our support for Tancredo and the anti-immigration forces within our Congress.
2004-11-21 20:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Over the next year or so we need to be showing our support for Tancredo and the anti-immigration forces within our Congress.[/QUOTE]
Everyone on this board should ante up and join [url=http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/]Americans for Immigration Control[/url] for the princely sum of $15/year.