E=Clanrickard;4601980]Hate to break it to you, but your heroes only fight those who can't fight back. So unfortunately for all 'right thinking people' there won't be an Iranian war for you to salivate over any time soon.I am putting myself into their shoes. It is up to them obviously but if the Israelis do whack them I'd be backing them as will right thinking people.
Actually, I think the prospect of Israel 'whacking' Iran is about as likely as you writing a post without some infantile reference to 'lefties'.Which obviously excludes left wing multicultural moral relativists.
In other words, not very likely at all.
I suggest that people who think tney know what's up with Iran and the IEAE report go back and read post# 34, a translation of former IAEA chairman Hans Blix q&a on Swedish TV this morning.
Or you can read it here
Hans Blix on Iran War Avoidance
In an interview this morning with France Info, the all-news public national radio, FranÁois GÈrÈ, the president of the French Institute of Strategic Analysis (IFAS), said that the new IAEA report must be taken with some distance, "read between the lines," since the information accusing Iran was provided by the three accusers, France, the U.S., and Great Britain.
GÈrÈ had actually addressed the operation against Iran in France as far back as mid-October, when Le Figaro military reporter Isabelle Lasserre, wrote an article entitled: "Iran Readying a Nuclear Bomb," based on alleged leaks from the upcoming IAEA report.
Countering Lasserre, the next day in an interview with the national magazine Le Point, GÈrÈ blasted her Le Figaro article. "This report contains not a single new element compared to six months ago." After having studied "elements of that IAEA report," GÈrÈ told Le Point journalist Armin Arefi, "We know that Iran has sped up uranium enrichment to 20% under the control of the agency. Hence it follows that the Islamic Republic would be able quickly enough to enrich up to 90%, the threshold allowing for military utilization of uranium. All the more so in that already known elements are capable of research aiming to link this military capability with ballistic capabilities. But, we are not dealing with a North Korea case, where specimens taken from plutonium rods constituted irrefutable proof." GÈrÈ continued, "Here, no one is in a position to say that Iran has diverted a certain number of centrifuges and attempted to enrich up to 90%."
"What is different today," continued GÈrÈ "is that the report is much more politically oriented. It is much more accusatory against Iran, even though no proof has been advanced." GÈrÈ also reacted angrily at Lasserre's accusation of former IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei, whom she accuses of minimizing the Iranian nuclear program and "even having lied about certain of its elements." "Those accusations are scandalous. ElBaradei simply respected the principle of the agency's functioning, according to which nothing is made public about what elements were discovered."
Le Point's Arefi notes that Lasserre's accusations in Le Figaro came out just days after revelations of an alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States. "The Al Quds Brigade is sufficiently tough and experienced not to have to call upon just any Iranian citizen on American soil," an astonished former diplomat, a specialist on Iran, told Arefi, saying he could not see any interest whatsoever Iran would have in organizing such a "fantastic operation," except that it would be "shooting themselves in the foot."
Predating what is now known as an immediate world war danger, including the murder of Muammar Qaddafi, GÈrÈ at the time identified the two operations as part of a "media campaign aimed at preparing the ground for a new series of UN sanctions, led by the United States and France.... This new dynamic against Tehran is bound to fail," he said. "Russia and China have again shown that they will veto any UN resolution against Iran."
But GÈrÈ leaves out what is most important of all: we're not talking about a second edition of the 2003 Iraq invasion, nor an Iran war, but a build up to a great war
Russia and China trying to stop the "sexed up" drumbeats for war---
The "proof" being trumpeted in various media is based on leaks from the IAEA report, primarily through the dubious "expert" David Albright, who has made a well funded career from Iraq on of fomenting this kind of hysteria. Those of you adding to the drumbeats should seriously investigate where your "information" and "opinions" originate.
RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN LUKASHEVICH, reporting on discussions yesterday in Moscow between Foreign Minister Lavrov and Ali Baquer, the deputy head of Iran's National Security Council, said ``Iran has confirmed that it wants to resolve all outstanding issues with the IAEA. This is incompatible with efforts to impose new sanctions, which will only drive any prospects of negotiations into a dead end.'' Baqueri, for his part, said the documents cited in the IAEA report are ``not genuine,'' and come from the U.S.
CHINA also is trying to cool things out. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said that sanctions won't resolve problems related to the nuclear program, and called instead for a return to the 6-party talks.
Speaking of "weapons of destruction" the Middle East, "sexed up" and WAR - has anybody seen Phony Tony, or any other Senior New Labour war as a means of economic stimulus liars recently ????
But don't deceive yourself this is some Keynsian war stimulous rerun. This war drive is being pushed in the middle of an unstoppable, unsavable financial collapse. How far is the financial oligarchy going to go to take everything down with them?
Last edited by rebellin; 10th November 2011 at 11:51 PM. Reason: dates for meeting added
David Albright: Purveyor of Nuclear Lie
David Albright, the founder and director of the Institute for Science and International Security, in Washington, D.C., remains at the center of provocative press coverage of the Iranian nuclear program and the International Atomic Agency (IAEA) report issued (to governments) on Nov. 8. "The IAEA cannot get any more cooperation from Iran," Albright declared to the PBS Newshour's Ray Suarez, a few hours after the IAEA report was issued. "And I think the time has come that the Board of Governors probably needs to pass a resolution calling on Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and give them some time to cooperate. And then probably, if they don't, this would then be referred to the Security Council for further consideration."
Albright seems committed to playing the same kind of pernicious role he played in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, this time with respect to Iran.
Albright was a key figure in bringing to the West, Khidir Hamza, who was sold to, and then by, the pro-war neo-cons as "Saddam's bomb maker." Hamza was brought out of Iraq by Albright in 1994, and was then employed by him at ISIS from 1997 to 1999. They co-wrote a book and a number of articles on Iraq's alleged nuclear program. In one article, entitled "Iraq's Reconstitution of its Nuclear Weapons Program," published in Arms Control Today in October 1998, they claimed "Iraq is suspected of having made progress on a number of bottlenecks in its weapons program, at least those that could be done with little chance of detection by inspectors." They warned that if UN inspection program were to become ineffective "Iraq could reconstitute major aspects of its nuclear weapons program."
Hamza was later exposed as a fraud and a liar by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. "Had Albright in fact been a true nuclear expert, especially one fortified with firsthand experience as a former UN weapons inspector, he would not have had any association with Khidir Hamza, the disgraced Iraqi defector who claimed to have firsthand knowledge of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program." Ritter wrote in a 2008 article, "The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was." "A true nuclear expert would have recognized the technical impossibilities and inconsistencies in Hamza's fabrications." Hamza, however, did prove to be very useful to the neo-cons in driving the United States into the needless invasion of Iraq.
Albright and Hamza eventually parted ways, but Albright continued to play his role, as well. On Sept. 7, 2002, Albright published a piece arguing that what had been a uranium extraction facility prior to the 1991 Gulf War, was active once again. "Unless inspectors go to the site and investigate all activities, the international community cannot exclude the possibility that Iraq is secretly producing a stockpile of uranium in violation of its commitments under Security Council resolutions. The uranium could be used in a clandestine nuclear weapons effort," he wrote. He based his conclusion on commercially available satellite pictures.
While he later became skeptical of claims that Iraq was on the cusp of building a nuclear bomb, he never wavered from the other claims of chemical and biological weapons, also part of the case for war. "In terms of the chemical and biological weapons, Iraq has those now," he told CNN on Oct. 5, 2002. "How many, how could they deliver them? I mean, these are the big questions." The fact that no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons were ever found by the occupying forces showed the fraud of these claims.
Ritter's exposé of Albright's lack of expertise received backup from Alexander DeVolpi in a Feb. 15, 2009 posting in response to comments posted in defense of Albright on Ritter's article, including from Frank Von Hippel of Princeton University. DeVolpi is a retired nuclear engineer from the Argonne National Laboratory, and a veteran of 40 years of field work in nuclear physics, nuclear reactors and arms control. Of Albright, he says: "Dave's a friendly guy, but I always found him shallow on experience, and now realizing that he was once on the research staff of Princeton University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, I have a better understanding of his predisposition and educational preparation. With no substantive foundation, he has expressed himself as philosophically opposed to nuclear power. This is not uncommon, particularly with academics associated with Princeton who evince no hands-on or other practical field experience regarding nuclear-weapons, nuclear reactor technology or verification methodology."